Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
27
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Tik, As usual you are absolutely correct. My only point of disagreement is the alliance bit. Now while you are technically correct that the Non-Aggression Pact itself was not an alliance, as you point out ,there were further agreements based on the Pact. The most important being the Secret Codicil Which was perhaps the most evil alliance in history--partitioning all of Eastern Europe and exposing its people to monstrous atrocities..
Anyone who says that the Soviets won the War on their own either have an ideological motive or knows nothing about military history.
1. The ideological crowd that insists that the Soviets won the War alone is primarily the hate America/Britain crowd who do not want to admit the vital importance of democracy and capitalism. The others are Russian nationalists who have no interest in actual history.
2. The other group who thinks that the Soviets won the war alone know nothing about military history. Notice that they mostly talk about MANPOWER--both Soviet and German Any one who has studied military history even minimally knows that manpower is only one element of combat power, an important one, but not the only one. If manpower was all that was important, China would have won the War. World War II was an INDUSTRIAL war. At it was the Western Allies that provided most of the industrial might that defeated the Germans.
The Western contribution to the War is often described as limited primarily to Lend Lease. Too often the War in the West is ignored. As you explain, it involved less manpower. (Primarily because of the Soviet role in destroying the French Army and almost destroying the Brutish RAF in 1940.) If nothing else, the War in the West prevented the Germans from getting the oil they needed, which you mention. (Notice the Soviets in sharp contrast provided vast quantities of oil to the NAZIs during 1939-41). But even more importantly, the War in the West forced the Germans to divert most of their Industrial output to fight the War in the West. The central reason for Germany's defeat was that most of their industrial output went West while their Manpower went East--a recipe for disaster in any war. This meant that the Ostheer went East on foot with horse-drawn carts and was poorly equipped and supplied. It was the Red Army that actually defeated the Ostheer, but it was the Western Allies that both helped supply the Red Army and denied the Ostheer the support they needed from German industry.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jackmack1061 Again rather than discussing the issue rationally. You just fling insults. And you attempt to invent what I said. I never said that the NAZIs were Communists. I said that the NAZIs and other Fascists were socialists. I base this on fact. Notice I do not fling insults, Anyone can do that. It does not take intellect or knowledgeable. What are the facts? 1) The German state seized control of the economy (setting prices, wages, access to raw materials, ect. 2) Control mean that market forces did not operate in NAZI Germany, 3) The NAZIs seized control of the trade unions. 3) The NAZIs seized private business and not just Jewish businesses. 4) The NAZIs copied the Soviet Five Year Plan with their Four Year Plan run by Goering, 5) The largest industrial enterprise in the country became Goering's sate-owned Reichswerke, 6) Like the Soviets, the NAZIs used slave labor, 7) The NAZIs let some private owners manage businesses, but controlled what they did. Others who refused Government orders lost their businesses.
3
-
These discussions of the Ostkrieg often note how the German allies (Hungarian, Italian, and Romanian) forces were largely ineffectual. The assumption was that they did not have the same fighting spirit as the Deutsche Ostheer. This may or may not be true, but it is vital to recognize how poorly equipped they were. They did not have much in the way of anti-tank guns or modern artillery. The Deutsche Ostheer itself was poorly equipped. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry moving east on foot with horse-drawn carts. So you can imagine to what extent the Germans helped equip the allied armies. This should be born in mind when assessing the NAZI allied armies.
here are other important considerations: Why were the Germans not better able to supply their own as well as allied armies? They had a far larger heavy (steel) industry component than the Soviets. They should have out produced the Soviets hands down . Especially so much of Soviet industry was located in the Western Soviet Union and overrun. The Soviets moved whole factories east, but many were overrun. And the NAZIs occupied or controlled virtually all of Western and Eastern Europe, except the unoccupied Soviet Union. They should have hugely out produced the Soviet Union, but they did not. So you have to ask why.
There were three basic reasons:
1. NAZI industrial policy was a disaster. Not only in the Reich, but in the occupied territories. Unlike the Soviets, German companies continued to focus on quality and resisted mass production methods. And Except for Czechoslovakia, the occupied territories were not effectively integrated into the NAZI war economy. France is a case in point. France had a large modern, arms industry which made almost contribution to the German war effort. The NAZIs seemed as interested in killing slave laborers as increasing production.
2. The Soviets in contrast rose to the occasion. They introduced American mass production techniques during the 1930s. They also realized that the life span of tanks and other equipment night be only a few days in battle. Thus it did not make sense to create high quality weapons made to last a life time. They also understood that unnecessary tinkering with designs slowed down production. There was also American Lend-Lease which was very important. . Here the Americans give too much weight to it and the Russians attempt to say it was meaningless.
3. The most important factor was the War in the West. German MANPOWER was primarily committed to the Ostkrieg, German INDUSTRY, however, was primarily committed to the War in the West. It takes a lot of industry to build aircraft and ships, very little to build horse carts. It is important to understand that half of Germany's war industry was used to build air craft and missiles. And the air war was primarily fought in the West as was the naval war. This diversion of industrial output meant that the Ostkrieg, the decisive campaign of the War, was fought by the Ostheer which was poorly equipped and supported.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think you make some good points and I do not totally disagree with you, but I also think you miss some very crucial points. Here are some issues off the top of my head.
1. Churchill's importance in history is a) keeping Britain in the fight with the unfolding disaster in France and b) recognizing the importance of America and laying the foundation for the Anglo-American alliance. All the matters you mention or minor compared to these two monumental matters. There is no way that Britain could have won the War without America. And I don't know how America could have fought the War without Britain. So 'a' and 'b' above were the two essential factors in the Allied victory.
2. The failure in Norway was not the shortage of troops as you suggest, but the ability of the Germans to gain air superiority. By the way, the intervention was not to get ahold of Swedish iron ore but to deny it to the Germans.
3. Churchill was absolutely correct about Gallipoli. The strategic concept was sound. It was the military execution that was faulty. And I don't think you can blame Churchill for the military execution.
4. It is absolutely correct that he had many hair-brained ideas and drove Brooke to distraction, but to his credit, he never went against the War Cabinet.
5. While he had many bad ideas, you ignore his many good ideas: tanks in World War I, the character of Hitler, tolerating DeGaulle, prioritizing the air war, maintaining the British base in Malta, giving the Americans access to Britain's secret weapons research, dissuading the Americans from a cross-Channel invasion in 1943, and Mulberry.
6. The extent to which he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.
7. His concern for the Jews. He spoke out against the NAZI killing campaign much more strongly than President Roosevelt.
8. Standing up to Stalin over the execution of 50,000 German officers.
As for making peace with Hitler after Dunkirk, I suggest you look at how long Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' lasted after Munich. And have you considered how the lack of war in the West would have affected the Ostkrieg?
Why do you say he was pro-Fascist? He saw much more clearly than Chamberlain and the British public that you could not appease Hitler. He never questioned British democracy, civil liberties, or capitalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@montrelouisebohon-harris7023 Wow!. That is quite a post. Two matters I would take issue with. One minor and another major.
1. The British did not invent radar on their own. The Germans had very advanced radar as well. And it was not unknown to the Americans, although military spending in America was very limited before Pearl Harbor. Actually, there was a radar station operational on Ohahu at the time of the Japanese attack and as far as I know, it was American technology--although I am not entirely sure about that. And they did pick up the Japanese attack. What the British did invent on their own was the cavity magnetron--easily the most important secret weapon of the War. American companies improved on the initial British invention and mass-produced it.
2. Hitler was not stupid to invade the Soviet Union. In fact, he has no other choice. British and American naval power meant that Germany could no longer import the resources it needed nor did it have the hard currency to buy them. The 1940-41 offenses in the West required resources that Stalin was delivering from the East. But Stalin was not a long-term ally. In fact, the Soviets were the only country with a military that posed a threat to Germany. He thus had to 1) neutralize that threat and 2) acquire the resources he needed. The only way to do this was to invade the Soviet Union before the Americans mobilized and generated a threat in the West. The most important resource needed was oil. But it was not the only resource. For example, European (and American) industry at the time ran primarily on coal. Germany had most of the coal it needed for its own industry, but not for the countries it occupied, And to exploit these economies, Germany needed to keep them functioning. (Before the War many European countries were importing coal from Britain.) Thus not only did Germany have to attack the Soviet Union, but if you read 'Mein Kampf'' that was the primary reason for the War to begin with. Another factor was the cost of maintaining an enormous military. Germany did not have the financial power to do that permanently.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tik,
There is much in what you say. but I think you ignore some important basic matters.
1. First of all you are correct, it was not all about Red Army numbers. Those numbers, however, were a factor.
2. The Ostheer was poorly equipped. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry. Meaning that the great bulk of the Ostheer moved east on foot with horse-drawn carts.
3. The NAZI allies were even more poorly equipped than the German troops. Remember it was the collapse of these units on the flanks of Stalingrad that led to the encirclement operation at Stalingrad,
4. NAZI barbarity aroused the fighting spirit of the Red Army soldier and Soviet civilians.]
5. American Lend Lease provided important support to the Red Army.
6. While German MANPOWER was deployed in the East, German INDUSTRIAL POWER primarily went to fight the War in the West. This left the Osttheer poorly equipped and inadequately supplied.
Also in all fairness, you should mention, that the Russian people have an even more myopic view of the War. Most are convinced that the Soviet Union won the War single-handedly and the War in the West was a sideshow. And the fact that the Soviets were a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years is expunged from the history books. And unlike in the West, there are no voices like yourself, Glantz, Cicano, etc. to provide a more balanced view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertleache3450 All good questions. But the culprit was not the German generals (they were responsible for many other things, but not economic policy, it was NAZI economic and industrial policy, And those responsible for it were primarily Hitler and Goering. You focus on France and for good reason, the substantial French arms industry went unused by the Germans, although they made some minimal efforts to use it. But it was not just France. The Germans basically controlled all of Europe. Ad what occurred throughout all of NAZ- occupied Europe was a massive decline in production. Part of this was due to NAZI brutality and mismanagement. but another part was energy shortages--both coal and oil. Often not mentioned was the War in the West, too often dismissed as a sideshow. Before the War, Britain exported coal to several countries occupied by the NAZIs. And they all imported oil, mostly from America or Amrucan-influenced countries (Mexico and Venezuela). Without these imports, cut off by the War in the West, production in NAZI-occupied countries faltered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gandydancer9710 Gandy,
You know I occasionally listen to C-Span which runs videos of university lectures, often on interesting topics. It is amazing the amount of PC, CRT, and woke drivel that they work into their lectures. And not a murmur of objection from the students. I sometimes e-mail them, but they are almost never willing to defend their lectures. I think that they have grown up in a Marxist ideological bubble and are just unaware that there are legitimate objections to how they spin the American story. Some of course are all too aware.
Interestingly some of the worse are the professors in women's studies. They go on and on about how terrible it was for women in America. Now I do not mind this because it is substantially true, but what I do mind is that almost never do they point out that America was at the forefront of the fight for women's rights and the situation for women in America was better than in almost all other countries, and not just Islamic and Hindu societies. Also note how the movement to attack Western Civilization never touches on the fact that it is in the West that the movement for women's rights arose.
One final matter. The universities go and on about inequities in America. Never mentioned is how expensive university education has become. Cost increases have outpaced virtually every other sector in American society. This, of course, creates hurdles for low-income students, forcing them to borrow huge sums. And because of admissions policies, accepting unprepared students, many do not graduate, leaving them with no degree, but with huge debts to pay off. This is basically a scam on unsuspecting low-income young people. And of course, never mentioned by the PC media
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vlad79500 Vlad. Col. David Glanz is indeed a highly respected American historian. He is provably the best American historian on the Red Army and the struggle on the Eastern Front. As to the quote, I suspect something was lost in translation, not so much your translation of the Russian, but the original translation from English to Russian. I would be very surprised if Col. Glanz said that Lend Lease did not have a significant impact on the War in the East. That was true in 1941-42 because shipments were still limited. Beginning in 1943, however, when American industry was fully retooled for war, Lend Lease began delivering substantial quantities to the Soviet Union. Actually, I have been corresponding with Col. Glanz. We were not discussing Lend Lease, but the point I was making to you. Mainly that while in terns of MANPOWER the Germans were largely committed in the East, in terms of INDUSTRY, the Germans were primarily engaged in the West. I was preparing to respond to his e-mail message. Let me know your e-mail and I will include you in the conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reginaldmcnab3265 What nonsense. It is you who is defended dictators. Instead of spouting left-wing dictators, try to read a history book. The Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, the Kims, Castro, Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, and the Mullahs would not agree with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tik, Another excellent video. I heartedly agree with you in your very important videos about socialism. Here I have two comments.
1. I agree with you about the major issue with coal was distribution, not production. I do think, however, that you underestimate the impact of having to supply the occupied areas. I know you briefly mention it at the end, but it is worth noting because the failure of the NAZis to maintain production levels in the Grossraum was an important factor in the German war economy. Before the War Britain was an important coal exporter. This stopped cold after the 1940 Western offensive. To keep the occupied economies rimming Germany has to replace the British coal with their own.
2. While I think you are absolutely correct about socialism, there is one little detail I see you avoiding. The Soviet Union with a substantial portion of their country occupied, including major industrial cities, managed phenomenal production of arms. They were aided by American Lend Lease, but still, this socialist economy produced arms on a prodigious level. Not on American levels, but given that so much of the country was occupied and that that they had a smaller industrial base than America, they achieved impressive results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pcka12 Pat, a little detail you leave out is that the war ended in 1918. When the United States declared war (April 1917), it not only did nit have a significant Army, but a significant war industry. American troops were not committed to combat in 1917 because they had to be trained. When they were first committed to combat (early 1918), their training was still not complete. And they trained and went into combat with a great deal of British and French weapons. For example, "A Springfield rifle was by far the most superior and the only weapon needed by advancing infantry in Kyler’s opinion. The rifle was dependable, easy to care for and had an adjustable rear sight for easy aiming.The Springfield.30-06 caliber rifle, however, was in short supply so the United States outfitted its soldiers with the British Enfield .303 caliber." https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2604&context=theses (p.10). I use this quote because the rifle is the major weapon of an infantry soldier. And the United States had a goof one, but they did niot have the capacity to manufacture them in quantity when America entered the War. You can search the internet and you will find that the AEF had to rely heavily on British and French weapons.
America was the most industrial country at the time, but not major arms industry (April 1917). Converting that industry to arms production took time, more than a year. Significant weapons production did not begin until mid-1918. You are correct that by 1918 (late 1918) the United states had geared up a massive arms industry, but of course before it had any impact on the War, the Germans asked for an armistice. America by late 1918 could supply the AEF, but this was not the case in 1917 and early 1918 when the AEF went into combat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is an important topic. The fighting spirit of the German allies (Hungarian, Italian, and Romanian) is one question, a little challenging to get at. One matter is much easier to assess and that is the armament of these divisions. Tik does an excellent job at providing details on how poorly they were armed. Now, given that the Deutsche Ostheer was 80 percent unmotirized infantry, it is understandable that the Axis allies were not going to get vehicles and heavy armament that German units did not have. This leads to an important question. Why were the German allies and German units so poorly equipped when German heavy industry had a greater capacity than the Soviets even before many Soviet industrial cities were overrun. The answer is twofold:
1. German industrial policy was much less effective than Soviet policy. The Germans had fewer mass production assembly lines. And the Germans were most focused on high-quality production than the Soviets who understood that tanks and other weapons might only have a life span of a few days or weeks at the front.
2, The War in the West. While German MANPOWER committed to the Ostkrieg, the bulk of Germany's industrial output was committed to the war in the West, leaving the Ostheer poorly supplied and supported. Russian authors commonly dismiss the War in the est. Actually, it was vital to the Red Army's victory in the East,.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ilsagutrune2372 Thanks. Guderian was largely right about the numbers but wrong about the data set. More important than total production was percapita numbers, which when calculated would bring France to German levels if not above them. Also of course 1936 was a Depression year. American production was only at a small percentage of its potential. Of course, other countries were affected by the Depression, but in terms of motor vehicles, I suspect America was more impacted.
And one observation as to the German mindset--there is no mention of the Soviet Union. Now the Soviets were not making cars, but in the 1930s, thanks in part to joint ventures with American companies, they were making trucks, tractors, and tanks. Given the importance of the Soviet Union and the Ostkrieg--a rather serious omission Not to mention where Guderian' and his Panzers failed. And notice he refers to an 'effective road network'. The Soviets did not have a road network, let alone an effective one.
Also, note his reference to 'skilled labor'. That was one reason the Germans failed in industrial production. They relied on skilled labor which was inefficient and evaporated as Hitler had to draft workers. American mass production techniques did not require skilled labor. Workers were trained to do one small part of an assembly line effort. That could be done quickly and thus large numbers of people who had never been in a factory before or knew nothing about machinery (i.e. women) could be easily brought into the industrial workforce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterthomson4632 This issue is a little more complicated than I had thought. So I am trying to think through it.
Here is what I have worked up.
The numbers for the Soviets I have noted are about the 9 million figure. The problem with this number is that it includes the large number of Red Army POWs that the NAZIs murdered. This was well in excess of 3 million which leaves us with less than 6 million actual Soviet combat deaths. The G.F. Krishoveev 11 million figure is interesting. That is larger than I had thought. The problem with Soviet data is that the Russians have kept their Wold War II archives closed and after a brief thaw, Putin has closed them again. Thus they are difficult to assess.
The German number is harder to get a handle on. I have seen estimates of about 7 million. A recent study by Rudiger Overmans, a German historian, estimated that German military deaths were 5.3 million. The German government reports that about 4.3 million military personnel either died or are missing. Now the Soviet Union also murdered POWs or allowed POWs to die as a result of mistreatment. This may have amounted to 1 million, probably more. Thus we are left with combat deaths of some 6.0-3.5 million. I am unsure just what numbers to use.
The Axis allies are an even greater statistical problem. As I understand it, the Hungarians, Italians, and Romanians were not actively involved in major combat operations but were generally left to deal with pockets and secure rear areas. This would not have involved huge casualties. (The Finns were different.) But of course, Stalingrad was different where these countries experienced huge front-line casualties, and many were taken as POWs in winter conditions--leading to high POW deaths. . So I am not sure how to enter them into the calculation. The numbers I have noted are Romanian (0.3 million), Hungarian (0.2 million), Finnish (near 0.1 million), and Italians (less than 0.1 million). But in this case, many of the deaths were not combat deaths. More than half of the Axis ally deaths were as POWs.
The data I have been looking at is for individual battles which take the POW calculation out of the calculation. Take Kursk for example. The Soviets had time to prepare rings of defensive lines with established defensive positions, well dug in with minefields, and pre-sited artillery implements. As you say, the Germans who were attacking should have experienced much higher German casualties. But the numbers I see for the battle are much higher than Soviet casualties, even for Bagration. Which I find hard to explain. And the Battle for Berlin shows about equal combat deaths--also difficult to explain given the Red Army's superiority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grizzlygrizzle
1. disagree the numbers are not important. I see as a primary factor the proportion of people enslaved. Not the only factor, but in my thinking, the single most important one.
2. I think you overestimate the number of slaves in ancient civilizations. For example, it used to be thought that the pyramids were built by slaves. we now know they were for the most part paid wages. My understanding is that the slave population of Greece and Rome was much higher than other ancient civilizations. This of course is especially interesting in itself given it was the Greeks who invented the very idea of freedom. Now my reading of ancient history is is episodic at best and I certainly do not pretend to have any great knowledge, but that is my understanding. I have read a good bit about Mose-America and the Andes. And there certainly were slaves, but they were a small portion of the population. This certainly was the case of China. The vast portion of the population was the peasantry.
3. You are right that Africans and African chiefs were involved in the slave trade. But I think this was exacerbated by Arab and European slave traders. I think before the arrival of the Arabs and Europeans that slave trading was on a much lower order of magnitude. Again my knowledge of early African societies is limited, but that is the impression I have at this time. I think is suggested by the degree to which areas of Africa were depopulated by the external slave trade. Or the fact that African slaves were a very small part of the slave population in ancient Rome.
4. Are you sure that babies and very young children are impacted by people who look differently. I am unfamiliar with the research on this. I take it you have some knowledge of actual research. Verb interesting.
5. Children on the other hand are less polluted with racism for the simple fact, as you explain, culture and learned behaviors are a major part of racism.
6. Genetics is a taboo topic, for me. In this case, avoiding the subject I think justifiable so because of the huge harm that can come of it. Another factor is that even if there are genetic differences (especially with intelligence) the order of magnitude would seem below that of the level of differences within racial/ethnic groups. And there is also the issue of separating differences between race and culture.
7. This brings me to me the most interesting issue you raise -- the fact that what is often seen as racism is a cultural issue. This touches on one of the great issues in modern America violence and the police. Now I think that there should be very high standards for police and that they should be carefully vetted. But I also think that we should have reasonable expectations for the police. And that individuals can not help to be impacted by their day-to-day experiences. People who would not think of going into police work,n especially the woke crowd expect perfection. from the police. And this all is worsened when parents teach children to hate the police. The problem here is African-Americans have a much higher rate of criminal behavior than other ethnic groups. We know this because neighborhoods that have high populations of AAs are some of the highest crime rates. And this is based on REPORTED crimes and not police profiling. In AA neighborhoods, the crimes being reported are being reported by mostly AAs. These high crime rates can not help but impact police officers (both black and white). This is something the AA community does not like to hear and assumes that anyone that brings this up is a racist. AA spokesmen and rewoken median are all for bringing up statistics dealing with inequities, but statistics about high crime in AA neighborhoods are seen as racist and suppressed. It is something that needs to be part of the conversation. And notice that many of the high-profile incidents in the news like George Floyd are criminals and come to the attention of the police because of criminal behavior.
7. Another cultural matter. One problem leading to income differences is that AAs or much less likely to engage in entrepreneurial efforts even in AA neighborhoods. Hispanics or Asians (often immigrants) are much more likely to start up a business. . Especially notable is that immigrant Africans do better than native-born AA in starting up businesses and succeeding in these startups. This is different than most immigrant groups where the second and subsequent generations do better than the first generation.
8. I do not say all of this to deny that pure racism is not a factor. I do believe that this exists, although to a far lesser extent than it once was. And today pure racism is not backed by the force of law and government-imposed limitations. Too often what is at play today is culture and the AA tendency to ignore this and just blame it all on hateful whites and white privilege makes this problem unsolvable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very well done. Thank you for an informed, honest report on the Dresden bombing. It was of course horrendous, but it is interesting how much misinformation circulates to paint the bombing as a war crime. If it was there would be no need to lie about it. You accurately dismiss the biggest lie--that Munich did not have arms industries. This is of course absurd to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the War. There was no city in Germany that was not contributing to the war effort and continuing to kill the few surviving Jews.
You lay out the details of what happened very well. There is one matter you did not mention--the idea that the War was already won and thus the Allies needed to reduce their effort. The fact is that both the Western Allies and especially the Soviets were still taking very serious casualties from German resistance..
To me, the overriding point here is that we all wish that the bombing had not taken place. But the Germans started and supported the War. Britain and America did everything they could to stay out of the War. But forced into the war and facing a remorseless enemy committing the greatest crimes in human history, the Allies were forced to fight it and mobilize their vast industrial strength. It is unrealistic to think that the engine of war they need to build up could be turned off on a dime. The Germans started the War, The Germans began bombing civilians, and 90, percent of the European civilians killed in the War were killed by the Germans. Harris said it best, ""The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
Another interesting point is that the critics of the bombing today do not come primarily from the Germans. It comes from the political left which is doing its best to delegitimize the Allied victory in the war, desperate to prove that Britain and America did not save Western civilization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goste4 I see no reason to continue this conversation. I have explained to you several times that I am willing to discuss this issue with you, but am not willing to waste my time with a one way discussion in which you ask the questions and ignore my questions.
I have repeatedly asked you: Name a prosperous country that does not have a core capitalist economy. You refuse to answer because you know there are none. Which of course is rather embarrassing in your critique of capitalism,
I will make one comment because your level of economics would embarrass a bright high school student. You have no idea what a capitalist country is. You seem to be defining it as any country that is not socialist which is absurd. Marx went into great detail on this in 'Das Kapital'. He would not have defined all the countries you are talking about at the bottom of GDP pecapita income listings as Capitalist. They were are below the level of development of a Capitalist country. He considered capitalism an ADVANCED STAGE of economic development (unjust, but advanced). Marx predicted that Communist Revolutions would take place in the advanced capitalist counties (America, Britain, Germany, France, etc.) It was a huge surprise to Socialists and Communists, that the Revolution took place in backwards, agricultural Russia. If you are going to spout Socialist nonsense, please open a book or two on economics. You do not even get Socialism right, let alone Capitalism
I am willing to discuss these issues with you. But if you continue to refuse to engage in a DIALOG, please don't bother me with your absurd posts demonstrating your complete lack of even the most basic understanding of fundamental economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonsouth1545 I'm still waiting for a list all the naval battles you say the Italians won. As for this post, it is ludicrous. The Brits did not have six battleships in the Med. Accoring to Wiki,"Sir Andrew Cunningham took command of the fleet from Warspite on 3 September 1939, and under him the major formations of the Fleet were the 1st Battle Squadron (Warspite, Barham, and Malaya) 1st Cruiser Squadron (Devonshire, Shropshire, and Sussex), 3rd Cruiser Squadron (Arethusa, Penelope, Galatea), Rear Admiral John Tovey, with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Destroyer Flotillas, and the aircraft carrier Glorious.[12] " It was the Italians that had six battleships in the Med. Your comment about resources is also absurd. The resources you mention came from SE Asia, all areas taken by the Japanese. It was America that kept Britain supplied with oil throughout the War. The Italian prosperity is not all deficit spending, but you finally hit on something i agree with. The growing problem of deficit spending in Europe and now America.
1
-
1
-
@jonsouth1545 Here are the figures. And anyone with a lick of seance would know that after Italy entered the War there was no way of getting oil from SE Asia or the Middle East to Britain. The raw oil production figures for the USA compared with Iran/Iraq and the Axis oil supplies from Ploesti in Romania make interesting comparisons and help explain why Hitler was doomed and Britain need American supplies.
Romania: 6,603,000 tonnes (1938)
Iran: 10,359,000 t (1938) rising to 19,189,000 t by 1945
Iraq: 4,272,000 (1938) and 4,476,000 (1945)
USA: 172,866,000 tonnes (1938).
So the British were getting twice as much oil from their Middle Eastern sources as the Germans were from the Romanian ones but the Americans were getting nine times as much as the British and Germans combined! And American deliveries steadily increased during the War
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vberg Actually Keith I read your posts very carefully and despite your explanations it makes no sense why you do nit admit despite all the many efforts that there has not been a successful socialist economy. God knows the Socialists tried and murdered some 100 million people in the process. I think any reasonable person looking at this would conclude that Socialism is fatally flawed. I will say that you are honest enough to admit that capitalism has been far more successful. I have had these discussions before and usually I get the explanation that socialism has necer been tried. All the leaders like Lenin, Sralin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Kim, Polpot, etc, were not true socialists. Actually the truer the socialist the higher the body count. But I will leave this as you raise some other interesting issues.
1. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: There is a big difference between Bernie.the Bernie Bros and European Democratic Socialism. The Europeans like the Chinese Communists have worked out that socialism does not work. What they have is not socialist economies, but welfare states. And because they are nit economic illiterates they understand that they need to pay the huge bills run up by the welfare state. So EVERY ONE of the successful European countries have CORE CAPITALIST ECONOMIES to generate the income to pay the bills. These countries like Greece which kill off the capitalist economy go bankrupt. Notice how Bernie and the Bernie Bros are constantly attacking corporations and depicting capitalism as evil. You do not see that in Europe. European leaders see their major corporations as national assets.
2. PROFIT MOTIVE: Obviously the profit motive can lead to bad things. Bank robbers and drug dealers are motivated by profit. But that is why we have laws. Virtually all of out modern lives are based on what advances achieved by bthe profit motive m including the computers/smart phones we are having this discussion on. ir the many life saving drugs that have been developed. How many drugs have been created by the state health systems you so admire? The 2008-09 recession was not caused by the banks, although I agree there were some bad actors among the bankers. (I am a big fan of capitalism, but readily admit that some capitalists are not very good people.) The cause was the GOVERNMENT and its welfare efforts to provide mortgage money to people who could not afford to pay a mortgage. Some bankers took advantage of this, but it was Government policy that was ar the root of the crisis. (Just as Government policies caused the Great Depression.)
3. MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: You are correct that the Government helped fund the research that made success of many American corporations and are prosperous economy possible. I have never argued that Government is nor important. And I am all for Government finding pure science and programs like the space program. I think your discussion misses two important points. First it was the American military industrial complex that destroyed the great totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century (NAZIs, Fascists, Japanese militarists, and Soviets). Second, at the end of World War II there were three countries that had important military industrial complexes. Two were socialists--Britain and the Soviet Union. (Britain in 1945 voted in a socialist government which began nationalizing industries left and right.) America was capitalist. Guess which one converted the the science and technology into brand new industries that led to prosperity for the average Joe. Thus is how the taxpayer benefited--countless good paying jobs. Actually Britain was the source of much of much of the technology, but thanks to Atlee and the socialists who saw capitalistm and corporation like the Bernie Bros as evil, Britain befitted little. .
4. AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: Here we agree. The American health care system is far too costly. It is unsustainable. I am not sure a European style national health system is the answer, but obviously something has to change. As part of that discussion, I would bet that you are unaware of the extent that the United States subsidizes the NHS. By nephew works for the NHS, and he was unaware.
5. IINFATUATION WITH SOCIALISM: About the U.K.and socialism, Britain before World War II was the most prosperous country in Europe. After Labour (the socialists) took power in 1945 it was soon over taken by Continental Europe, including the Iranians. Poor Princess Elizabeth had to seek donations for her wedding dress. Rationing continued until 1953. Germany which had been bombed to smithereens rose with the German Economic Miracle. Britain languished. I have spent a good bit of time in Britain. And when I saw Arthur Scaragail wearing an American baseball cap, I knew something was changing. Now I am not only an unrepentant capitalist, but an ardent American nationalist. But I grearly admire Britain, not only because of the World War II resistance to Hitler, but because the core values (like English law) that made America great are part of our English heritage. I still recall the emotion I felt when I first saw the White Cliffs of Dover. The 'infatuation' with socialism was directed more at America, although I think it applies to Europe as well. I think the vest example is African Americans. Nost are convinced that there future lies with larger welfare checks from Washington. Which is unfortunate because many of the impediments to enjoying the benefits of a capitalist economy ahave finally been lifted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wilhelm322 This is simply incorrect.
1. There was no German city that was not contributing to the German war effort. They might not be manufacturing Panzers or ME-109s, but they were making small parts and supplies of some kind. The idea that a city was isolated from the war effort is absurd.
2. Even the Americans bombing during the day did not have the technological ability to strike specific industrial targets. The idea of dropping a bomb from high into a pickle barrel was pure nonsense. They were doing well to get a bomb within a mile of a target. And of course, the British at night were even less accurate. But they could hit whole cities and the cities were where the industry was.
3. Industry, however, was not the only target. A very important part of the bombing was the Transportation Plan. This involved especially the transportation network to the Normandy beaches, but would eventually be expanded to the German transportation network in general. Onvoulsly an industrial system can not function without transport. This was especially true of Germany which was diversifying in the production of war material to limit the damage which could be inflicted by Allied combing. So all kinds of German targets were hit, especially if they were transportation nodes or marshaling yards. This was why Dresden was bombed.
4. There is no doubt that the bombing of the Reich was horrific, but it was the Germans who started the war, the Germans who began bombing civilians, and the Germans who were committing barbaric atrocities. The number of German civilians killed in the bombing was a small fraction of the civilians murdered by the Germans in barbarous killing operations. And the Holocaust was only a fraction of the murder operations. If you object to the bombing, just how would you have gone about destroying the NAZI tyranny? And remember that the NAZI plan was to murder even more people after they won the War. Read about Generalplan Ost.
1
-
@Wilhelm322 Your response is pure nonsense. World War II was not just conducted with tanks and aircraft or other weapons. I am not sure that you do not understand this obvious FACT or are being dishonest. Not producing weapons does not mean that a German city was not contributing significantly to the war effort. Dresden for example was a center of the German optical industry. You seem to be defining anything that did not have a gun as non-military. And thus claim industries and the cities where they were located were non-military. There were, for example, many military uses for optical equipment. That was true for countless other industries. The same was true of electronics. Another good example is locomotives and train cars. While they were not military if you define military as having a gun or explosive device. Germany could, however, not have conducted the war without train cars and locomotives. Just look at the huge numbers of American companies that got military contacts. Virtually all were companies that were producing non-military items that could be converted for military purposes. In addition with so many men in uniform, the Germans needed countless products that had nothing to do with weaponry. But were needed by the military (food, clothing, medical supplies, mess kits, canteens, etc.) I repeat that there was simply no German city that did not support the war effort as well as very few small towns and villages.
The rest of your message is similarly flawed, but I am not going to waste my time until you speak n=honestly and educate yourself about the War. I will mention that when you complain about the destruction of historical treasures, you look at what the Gernand did to Warsaw and countless other cities, especially in the East. Not to mention the German theft if art treasures in the countries that they occupied.
1
-
@Wilhelm322 1. "First of all i very much understand that many German cities produced materials which saw military use."
You pride yourself that you are well informed about the War. Anyone who has studied the War knows that there was no city in the Reich or any oher belligerent nation that did not produce goods and services used in the war effort. If you really know anything about the war you are simply lying.
2. "however that was rarely sufficient cause to destroy those cities."
The Germans are very good at war. This has been the case beginning with the Great Elector. Once Hitler had seized power and demilitarized, the only way of defeating the NAZIs was the application of America's and Britain's industrial power in full force. This is not the fault of the Allies. It is the fault of Germany. Germany began the War. Germany began bombing cities, and Germany began murdering civilians in enormous numbers. Now I would agree with you that the Allies had no right to bomb cities if Germany had not begun bombing cities and committing terrible atrocities. But given what Germany was doing the Allies had every right to apply the full force of their massive industrial power. Actually, they had a moral obligation to do so to protect people and countries who could not defend themselves.
3, "I am also very educated about ww2 and it’s horrific legacy, and while i am willing to accept that you may not know that much about ww2."
You are very impressed with yourself. But it is very clear from this discussion that you know very little about the War,
4. " What i am not willing to accept is that you show no sympathy for the innocent German civilians who were raped on mass, killed in massacres and expelled from their homes, "
You seem to have no knowledge of the millions of people the Germans expelled from their homes and murdered. And the many more they planned to target once they had won the Sar. Of course, I am sympathetic to German civilians. I suggest you look at how America and Britain treated German civilians and compare it to how Germany treated civilians in occupied countries. It is you, apparently, that has no sympathy for other people. It is America that prevented the German people from starving after the War. What country did Germany prevent from starving?
5. " you go on about the looting committed by German soldiers, the destruction of cities like Warsaw, the horrific Nazi atrocities, but just as a comparison the destruction of Warsaw took days even weeks to be completely finished, my hometown of Würzburg was destroyed over 90% in just 20 minutes. "
Well, it is true that the Allies had the ability to destroy cities and very rapidly. But it was not America who started the War or wanted to participate in the War. It was Germany that started the War and invaded virtually every country in Europe. That was Germany's choice, not America's. If you do not want your cities leveled. Don't start wars and murder people in other countries? And let's look at Wurzburg since you bring it up. In the early 1930s, around 2,000 Jews lived in Würzburg, which was also a rabbinic center. During Kristallnacht, in 1938, many Jewish houses and shops were raided, looted, or destroyed. The contents of two synagogues were stolen or destroyed. Many Jews were imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo. Between November 1941 and June 1943 Jews from the city were sent to the Nazi concentration camps in Eastern Europe. and murdered. Where is your concern for these grandmothers and grandchildren? From April 1943 to March 1945 a subcamp of the Flossenbürg concentration camp was located in the city, with dozens of prisoners, mostly from Poland and the Soviet Union.
6. "Also like i already said It was not the German soldiers who paid the price for the Nazis horrific crimes."
It was not just the NAZIs that committed crimes. It was the Wehrnmacht which was a criminal organization., You say you are well-informed about the war. Apparently, you missed "The Virtuous Wehrmacht" by David A. Harrisville. You also apparently are unaware of Generalplan Ost.' I thought you knew all about the war!
7. " but the German civilians the women and children were the ones who suffered the consequences."
You must have paid hooky from school a few times. I learned in First Grade that some numbers are larger than others. Some 25-30 million Soviet citizens were killed in World War II, mostly civilians murdered by the Germans. Some 25 percent of the Polish population perished. German civilian losses were a small fraction of those in the countries you invaded. Or look at the Dutch Hunger Winter or the Greek Famine. You also seem to be unaware of the German Hunger Plan. Funny how you know so little about the War. Germany got off very lightly for what it did. This was only because the Western Allies exhibited basic human decency, which Germany totally lacked.
8. "Finally were the polish managed to rebuild large areas of Warsaw the Germans often had to live with the fact that many of their historic buildings were lost forever."
Absolute nonsense. Germany also rebuilt its cities. And much faster than the Poles were able to.
9. "I am not being dishonest about ww2 i am simply asking you questions which you do not answer, for instance, the question of why my great grandmothers family had to die, "
Your great-grandmothers had to die because your country launched a barbaric genocidal war. And the simple fact is that far more foreign great-grandmothers died than German great-grandmothers. Again you show your sympathy is only with the Germans who suffered and not for the much larger number of people in other countries who suffered. I will point out that no German great-grandparents and great-grandchildren were driven into gas chambers or forced to stand in front of pits to be shot. (Actually, that is not entirely true, German doctors and nurses as part of the T4 program euthanized large numbers of handicapped children and adults.) But it was not something the Allies did, again it is something you people did. If you know so much about the war, why don't you know about the T-4 Program.?
10. "the question of how Dresdens factories were only attacked by 3 bombers as well "
Again you are displaying your total lack of knowledge about the War. Allied bombers did not have the technology to hit individual factories.
11. "as the fact that Germany has been paying reparations for the war since 1945, it still does we paid reparations to Poland, Russia, Britain, France and many other countries as well as holocaust survivors. "
Well, you finally said something that is accurate. Germany after the War faced up to the terrible crimes it committed. And has paid reparations. Apparently, those crimes are another class you missed.
12. "Yet where are the reparations the allies owe Germany for the destruction that Germany had to endure? "
Reparations are not paid to the person or countries responsible for the damage. Or are you foolish enough to think that if someone runs into you that you should pay him restitution? But in fact, America not only fed the Germans after the war but provided Germany Marshall Plan aid (Germany was the second largest recipient) and protected your country from the Soviets. You might want to read about the Berlin Airlift. Where is all this knowledge of the war you brag about?
13." Where are the artworks Russia stole from Germany, were are the cultural treasures Germany lost?"
You might want to ask your Russian friends. It was Germany that signed an alliance with Stalin (August 1939). Note that Germany looted artworks from all over Europe. America and Britain did not loot German museums or private collections. That is how your country operated.
14, "Now don’t even bother coming around with the German war crimes or the Germany stole treasures from other countries argument, it isn’t going to work."
Again you make it very clear that you are concerned about Germans and not a single tear for the tens of millions of victims of the NAZI tyranny.
1
-
@Wilhelm322 Good advice. Of course, I never start a discussion I don't think I can win. But I learn a lot from these discussions and sometimes lose them which is a healthy learning experience. Le's see if you have the same outlook.
Our large extended family only lost one young man, a cousin of mine that I never knew.
I never said that the Germans did not suffer in World War II. They certainly did and I am sorry for your losses. But I learned in First Grade that there are small numbers and big numbers. And there are big differences. Some 50 million people persisted in the European part of World War II. Some 2.5 million Germans died in the War. That means for every German that died, 20 non-Germans died. While you seemed concerned for the 2.5 million, Germans, where is your concern for the 47.5 million non-Germans.? Do you not also understand that they had families who missed them? I suggest that you read Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice". "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
And aren't you forgetting a little detail? Germany started the War!. Poland did not invade Germany, Germany invaded Poland in an act of brutal aggression. And Germany then proceeded to invade some 15 other countries, committing monstrous atrocities on the occupied people.
Another little matter. Of the 2.5 million Germans who perished, the vast majority were military. Only 0.5 million of the total were civilians. In the countries Germany invaded, in sharp contrast, most of the deaths were civilians because of the horrific German war crimes and atrocities. Murder was a primary German war goal. The Holocaust was only one part of this, and not the largest part. And the Germans had plans to kill more after they won the War. Read abougt Generalplan Ost. How many of the family members you lost were beaten, terrorized, and driven into gas chambers?
The Germans are very good at War. The simple fact is that once the Germans launched the War, the only way the Allies could win was to apply raw industrial power on an unprecedented scale. The people responsible for that are not Churchill and Roosevelt. The people responsible are the Germans who launched War and the horrendous murder campaign. Germans suffered it is true, but not nearly as much as the victims in the countries that they invaded. Over 25 million Soviets perished. Some 25 percent of the Polish population were killed.
Now the Allies can be criticized for various aspects of the War. But I leave you with one fundamental question. Just how would you have stopped German aggression and monstrous killing programs that would have involved fewer German casualties?
1
-
@Wilhelm322 You raise several issues. Some of which I agree with others I do not.
1. "Yes i share your outlook on discussions and i am very sorry your cousin tragically lost his life in the war, and i also share and understand the pain and suffering the millions of families who lost loved ones went through, "
I am glad to hear this because your original post only mentions the pain of the Germans.
2 " there was a slight inaccuracy in your comment about German casualties in total over 8 million Germans perished in the war with about half of those being military and the rest being civilians. Also and i do not blame you for perhaps not knowing this since it is not taught as much as it should be, German civilian death largely occurred after the war with up to 2.5 million civilians dying during the mass expulsions and the ethnic cleansing of Germans in countries like Poland, Czechia, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Russia, Belgium, England and several other countries, in total over 14 million Germans were forcefully expelled from their Homes by the governments whose countries they now lived in. "
There was no inaccuracy. My comments were about casualties DURING the War. What you describe occurred almost entirely AFTER the War. And as your comments seemed directed at the Western Allies, neither America nor Britain had anything to do with it. The Soviets did but, not the Western Allies. Air Marshall Harris explained it best. "They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." He was talking about bombing, but there are all kinds of consequences of starting a war. I don't condone what occurred, but people are not angels. It is understandable that given German behavior during the occupation (ethnic cleansing was a German policy) that with liberation, their victims would strike out. And you do not mention, that there was a degree of collaboration between the local Germans and the German occupation forces. In my World War II website because I try to report these matters objectively. YT does not permit hot links, but if you Google "World War II Ethnic Cleansing: Expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe" and add "histclo", my work should come up.
3. "Also an interesting quote I once heard was: “ Just because a Country starts a War doesn’t give you the moral or legal justification to end it however you see fit”.
I agree with this and suggest you compared the German occupation policies with that of the Allied occupation of Germany. The allied occupation was a model of propriety and humanitarianism. Not only were there no atrocities against the German people, but the Allies protected the German people from the Soviets, including the people of Wersr Berlin. And played a major role in the revival of Germany after the war. Germany was a major recipient of Marshall Plan Aid.
4. " What is also not to be forgotten is that it wasn’t the German Civilians who started the War but they had to suffer the consequences of a war the Nazis caused. "
The War was and the atrocities connected with it were not the work of a few NAZI bigwigs. Not only was Hitler extraordinarily popular, but large numbers of Germans were willing participants in what occurred. The whole issue of complicity is one that will never be answered, but one matter that is crystal clear is that large numbers of civilians were ardent NAZIs and an even larger number were involved in various ways in the NAZI horror. I will mention that it was common for German soldiers ton mention killing operations in the Soviet Union in their letters home. I also discuss this in my WW II website. You can Google "The Holocaust in Germany: Knowledge and Complicity" and add "histclo.com".
5. "I know that the Allies were completely justified in Fighting and opposing the Nazi Regime and they absolutely needed to defeat it, however, they did go over the top towards the end, with the mass rapes of Hungarian, Polish and German Women and Children,"
I find this offensive and leads me to question your sincerity. If you were talking about the Soviets, I would agree with you. But the Western Allies were not involved in mass rapes. This is a reprehensible lie. Of course, I am not saying that no American or British soldier raped a German woman. But given the number of named men and the chaos of the day, it would be absurd to think that rapes did not take place. It has occurred in virtually every war of history. Mass rapes condoned by commanders are nonsense.
6. "also the majority of The Soviet Casualties were Military and not civilians,"
The casualties in the Ostheer were so massive that there is no precise accounting, but you are wrong. The majority of deaths in the Soviet Union were civilians. There are different assessments. The latest seems to come up with about 27 million people killed with 9 million military debts. There are several different estimates, but all of the ones I have seen show larger civilian than military deaths. And compare that with the 0.5 million German civilian deaths, less than 1 percent of the population.
7. " however the Germans did start the War, so they should have expected to be attacked in return.
Something we agree with.
8. "Finally the Polish committed their own Crimes when they killed German Civilians and brutalise and expelled them, my Family was one of the thousands of Families who were expelled from Their Homes, in this case, Königsberg they were brutalized, tortured, humiliated, beaten, insulted and treated like filth."
Discussed above. As I mentioned, the Western Allies had nothing to do with this. As for the Poles, the Germans killed 25 percent of the population. Just what do you expect from them? You complain about the 0.5 percent of the population killed during the War--that was less than 1 percent.
9. " Also i do understand your reasoning and it is very solid and understandable, however, please never forget Civilians are never responsible for the Crimes of Their Government and shouldn’t be punished for them."
This is also discussed above. And I will point out that before Hitler seized dictatorial power, the NAZIs were the largest political party in Germany. And the NAZIs and Communists combined were a majority of German voters. And as mentioned, the German atrocities involved the participation of a substantial part of the German public. Take the T-4 killings. This was not done by the NAZIs. It was done by doctors, nurses, and other caregivers who willingly participated with very little complaint.
1
-
1
-
@Wilhelm322 Thank you, I do my best to deal accurately and fairly with these issues, any of which are highly controversial. I hope you noted that many of the pages are documented with references to a range of historical sources, including German sources. Now as to your comments.
1. "First of all i looked at your website and i am very impressed by it, you made good points and good reasoning so take this as a very big compliment to you. I also agree with most of your points and thank you for pointing out my inaccuracies and mistakes however note that it was over 6 million Germans who died during the War with 2.5 Million dying after the war, "
There are many estimates of the German deaths. You can easily Google this to get a fix on the estimates. The general consensus seems to be 2.5 million during the War (2 million military and 0.5 million civilian) As for the deaths after the War there seems to be a wider range. I note estimates 0f be 0.6-2.5 million, most of these estimates are the work of German authors and several were conducted by the German government. The Wiki page has a detailed discussion of the various studies. Note that none of them come close to your 8 million death figure.
2. "also note that the Soviets threw their soldiers and civilians alike towards the Nazis therefore making the death toll a lot higher, the Soviets also starved their own population in the so called Holodomor(Terror Famine)"
I also covered the Soviet Union in some detail in my website, including the Ukrainian Famine. Actually, I would like to get into more detail. The site, however, relies heavily on photography. Many pages are based largely on images that I have found. And there are far more German images. This is in part because more Germans had cameras, but also because many Germans were proud of what they were doing and wanted a record of their monumental achievements. The Soviets gave more attention to not leaving a historical record. That said, I think you will find one of the largest accounting of Soviet atrocities on the web in my website. You can Google "World War II: War Crimes and Atrocities" and add histclo.com
.
3. " I do not blame the Western Allies for what the Soviets did however i do blame the Western Allies for having known of rapes of German Women and Children by American, British, and French soldiers but not having stopped it. "
You keep bringing up the subject of rapes by the Western Allies. I do not deny it occurred. But to defeat Germany a mass draft was needed. that meant involvement of the general public. And that meant that large numbers of young men with guns and varied moral characters were moving through Germany. Now there are a variety of considerations here. First and foremost, just who was responsible for this. It was of course Germany who began the war and committed the greatest crimes in human history. Next, you are assessing what occurred based on our 21st-century standards and outlook. I can tell you that not very many Europeans outside of Germany would have agreed with you at the time. The vast majority of people at the time would have said, that the Germans got what they deserved.
I suppose my opinion is that you are nitpicking. After horrendous crimes of killing tens of millions of people that you are bringing up matters of minimal importance and inflated numbers. What was really important here was to f1) defeat the Germans militarily and 2) out of the ashes of a defeated Germany creating a low-abiding democratic nation. This is what the Western Allies accomplished. Personally, I think the greater travesty of justice is the many German war criminals that were not prosecuted, meaning countless people responsible for mass murder.
Now I do not condone rape, especially mass rapes. And some raped did occur. A question that has to be considered is how many. The numbers relating to American GIs I have seen are about 11,000 [Source: J. Robert Lilly 'Taken by Force'] Now I think that is probably an understatement given that in times of war, many rapes were unreported, especially if the woman was not otherwise injured. Given the wartime situation and that the Germans, including German civilians, were responsible for 50 million deaths and the destruction of much of the continent. Now there is an outlier. German historian Miriam Gebhardt suggests the number of German rapes could be as high as 190,000. This is a much greater order of magnitude. But Gebhardt's estimate is an extrapolation based on a small sample--hardly a definitive statement. Just what the actual number was, I do not know.
3. "The Next point is something i agree with you on the Polish had every right to be infuriated after losing such a high amount of their population, that does not excuse however the fact of how they treated innocent civilians. The Soviets were however not the ones who expelled the Germans from Poland, Belgium, France, Czechia, Austria, Italy, Denmark or The Netherlands. They did however massacre the Germans in Soviet territory."
This is a long list. The expulsion of the Germans was one of the largest mass movements in history, perhaps 12 million people. Most came from Eastern Europe. (Eastern European countries occupied and controlled by the Soviets.) I am sure that you are aware was Hitler's initial tactic was to pretend to only be protecting the German population in other countries. Given what people in these countries endured during the War, can you honestly say that you would want Germans in your country after the War? I will point out that even today, it is the same argument Putin is using today to justify his aggression.
1
-
@Wilhelm322
4. Also what is not to be forgotten is that it was Winston Churchill who was the one who called for the quote: " complete and utter Genocide and expulsion of the Volksdeutsche".
I am a great admirer of Churchill, but like all of us, he was not perfect. And remember he was waging a war against great odds until the Soviets and America came into the War. And the NAZI tactic as mentioned above was to pretend to only want to protect Germans. Thus getting Germans out of small countries with limited abilities to defend themselves made a lot of sense -- again because of German behavior. Again this has to be placed in context. Just out of curiosity, when and where did he say that? I suspect it was late in the War when his concern was to make sure that Britain would not have to fight another costly war.
5. "So saying the Western Allies were not responsible is ignoring that very important fact, i do not know whether you were unaware of that fact or just being dishonest."
A difference of opinion is not a matter of dishonesty as long as you do not deny facts or rely on manufactured data. The simple FACT is that the vast majority of the German refugees came from Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. And the most serious violence occurred in Soviet-occupied countries. It is not a situation the Western Allies created or had any significant control over. It was created by the Germans who started the War and committed terrible atrocities and the Soviets who wanted the Germans as far West as possible. And worth noting, the Western Allies admitted the entrance of the refugees so they could be cared for. (The Soviets refused to allow them to settle in their zone.)
6. " Finally Germany suffered the Third highest Death toll in Europe, so please remember that War is always horrific no matter who starts it, so blaming Germany for all the Crimes and Atrocities is completely wrong. I know that you primarily talked about the Casualties during the War, but please don’t forget the Innocent Civilians who died both during and after the War. "
Who starts the War is very important, especially who starts the War as a war of conquest with a motivation to seize territory and murder millions of civilians is very important. Are you blaming Ukraine for the current War? I don't blame Germany alone, Germany and the Soviets jointly started the war and were allies (1939-41). And they were responsible for the vast majority of the atrocities, especially the atrocities ordered and organized by the government.
7. "Also just as a side note Poland only suffered 6.5 million Casualties therefore Germany had a higher death toll, please look at the list i gave above in the previous message to confirm and see that point. "
Only? Is this a serious comment? You could point out that Luxembourg had an even smaller number. But to make a meaningful assessment, it is the percentage of the population that experienced abuse that was important. Not to mention that over 27 million Soviets citizens perished.
8. "What is also to be remembered is that the Germans never deserved any of the Hate or Treatment they got, The Women and Children who were killed were certainly not responsible for any atrocities committed by the Nazis, and even if they were it wouldn't have justified Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide which is what this is."
People are imperfect beings. You may say it was unfair, but your views are obviously influenced by the family members lost. It is really difficult to understand that non-Gemans are influenced by the far greater number of family members lost. Many Jewish survivors lost their ENTIRE extended family.
The question of involvement and participation is a very complicated one. It is simply inaccurate that German women and children were all innocent. Many were innocent. Many were not. There were female guards in the camps. German women mistreated Ostarbiten. German women took in kidnapped Polish children as part of the Lebensborn program. German nurses were part of the T-4 program. German mothers told their children that Jews were dirty and not to play with them. This could be a very long list. Even for children, there was involvement. The Hitler Youth played a major role in the Kristallnacht round-ups. HJ boys beat up their Jewish schoolmates. BDM girls searched the belongings of the Poles expelled from annexed territories to make sure they were not taking anything of value with them. The BDM girls were less likely to use violence against their Jewish schoolmates, but commonly engaged in other cruelties. Again this could be a long list.
1
-
@Wilhelm322 5. I do not deny any fact about the Mass Expulsions, i am simply stating that the Western Allies were just as responsible as the Soviets. Also do you not realise that It was Western Europes most important leader who first suggested it? The English wanted the Germans to be Forcefully expelled from non German territory, The French wanted Germany to be carved up permanently and the Germans relegated to a minority, The Americans followed what the English wanted, the Polish wanted revenge and the Soviets just wanted to kill of the Germans in Soviet Controlled Europe. Also your idea of “care” was quite far from what actually happened in many areas, in Denmark German Refugees from East Prussia were placed in interment Camps, In Occupied Germany they were often placed In crowed Camps or old internment Camps or simply killed, there was also rampant and widespread mistreatment and abuse of German Refugees by Allied Soldiers(Even Western Ones).
6. You seemed to have misunderstood my argument and i put that on myself for not having made it clear enough, i wasn’t saying that it wasn’t important who started the War i was stating that it was not important who started the war in terms of the ethical question. Since in my view every war is a crime and is unforgivable. If England started a war that would be just as wrong as Germany starting the Second World War or Austria Hungary and Serbia Starting the First. In the terms of the war you seemed to have understood in my argument yes it is incredibly important but i was not going towards that point.
7. Yes that is a serious comment and you again didn’t see the point i was trying to make( albeit i didn’t make it clear enough). The point i was trying to make is that the percentage of the loss of the Polish Population was horrific, yet the polish population did in many ways get off much better than the Germans, for instance the Germans were expelled from their homes(also by the polish), they suffered Mass rapes(as did the polish), Germany was divided into 4 occupation zones, it lost a large percentage of its territory and a massive percentage of it male population( 46%). No i am not saying that Poland didn’t suffer, i am simply saying that you shouldn’t say one of the two suffered more then the other, I’d instead say they suffered pretty much equally as bad. Just as a comparison: The polish suffered a larger loss of percentage of their population( Polands population was however also smaller than Germany’s) Germany suffered a larger Male population loss in percentage 46% as well as a larger military loss 76%. Finally were the Polish suffered horrifically at the hands of the German Army, the Germans who were expelled from Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia suffered both at the hands of the polish army and people, in contrast the Polish didn’t suffer at the Hands of German Civilians.
8. So if i am understanding you correctly you are basically just going to ignore the crimes committed by people from Allied Nations, you seem fairly committed to making the German Civilians seem somehow responsible for the War or it’s Atrocities( if i am wrong please correct me). Just for your information my Family is originally a jewish Family, though by the time of the Second World War most of the Family were Protestant Prussians. I lost 32 Members of my German Family in The War only 4 Members of my family who were in Germany during WW2 survived, the rest having fled before or during the War. My Family suffered at the Hands of the Nazis, Polish, Soviets, English, French and Americans. 12 of my Family Members died due to bombing, 6 Died in Internment Camps and the rest died due to rape, Forced Expulsion, Forced Labour and War Crimes.
As for a final point the Allies mistreated the German Pows after the War, with them being forced to do labour under horrible conditions, starved to death, abused and targeted for revenge. Now the Germans also did that especially to Soviet Soldiers, but The sheer number of The German Pows who suffered because of this is astronomical, most researchers say out of the 7 Million German pows more than 1 Million died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1