Modern Germany and WW2

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
I visited Ukraine, Poland and Germany back in '93. Ukraine will show you the valley where thousands of people were forced into and shot mass execution style.
Poland will show you the Old City that was obliterated by the Germans, who systematically bombed and dynamited the city block by block. then they will show you how they rebuilt the old buildings using smuggled original blueprints, financed privately in the '70's and '80's.
then we got to Germany... no mention of the history, no tours of historical sites, just a tour of the Rhine and show us some old castles.

of course, I wouldn't have been very popular in WWII Germany (if I was alive back then); I'm Polish, married to a black woman, and a member of a certain group that was interred in the camps...


The execution valley shooting is in Kiev. There's a mass grave that is now a soccer field. They were mowed down and bulldozed over.

Kiev was a blood bath.

There is a good Wiki article on it actually!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)

 

[javacontour]

The body counts don't necessarily indicate a level of involvement as much as they do the nature of the commanders of those forces.

German and Soviet generals were under great pressure to hold or take ground at almost any cost. The Allied forces on the Western European front were more wise stewards of their people.

I suspect the Germans fought quite a bit harder against the Soviets than they did the other allies. After all, if you felt that losing was inevitable, who would you give up to more easily, the US/UK forces or the Soviets?

Also, the Western Allies had years to train before they went ashore (not counting North Africa and Italy of course.) So even the green troops probably had more training than the typical German or Russian infantry or armored soldier of the war.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour, do you think the US would have gotten involved?

There certainly were some rather significant battles before the US was ever involved in WWII. The battle of Kiev comes to mind, where the Germans slaughtered some 616,304 Soviets. In contrast, the US lost 125,847 in the entire Normandy campaign.


I think it was inevitable. I doubt many more Greer/Reuben James/Kearny/SS Robin Moor incidents would of been tolerated.

Pearl Harbor though didn't drag us into WW2. Hitler's declaration of war, (For prestige, as the terms of the pact with Japan did not require it.) is what did it.

But if we're going to compare battles such as Kiev, Vyzama, Kharkov in 42, etc to US involvement, then the same could be said about Poland, 1940 in the West, the Balkins 1941, the whole Africa/Italy campaign.

We're getting off the thread subject

Well come on, going OT on BITOG is par for the course

My mention of US involvement was simply due to how it gets portrayed by Hollywood, which is what the other poster mentioned.

Every country has their own WW2 story, that's for certain. I think his point was simply that some of the European battles get ignored, whilst the ones where the US was involved are given the limelight, and perhaps a disproportionate amount of it.

The Soviets lost the most lives by a massive margin. Battles like Kiev and Minsk show us why. While modern day Germans are not proud of their Nazi past, there is no denying that they were an incredible force.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
The body counts don't necessarily indicate a level of involvement as much as they do the nature of the commanders of those forces.

German and Soviet generals were under great pressure to hold or take ground at almost any cost. The Allied forces on the Western European front were more wise stewards of their people.

I suspect the Germans fought quite a bit harder against the Soviets than they did the other allies. After all, if you felt that losing was inevitable, who would you give up to more easily, the US/UK forces or the Soviets?

Also, the Western Allies had years to train before they went ashore (not counting North Africa and Italy of course.) So even the green troops probably had more training than the typical German or Russian infantry or armored soldier of the war.


I don't necessarily agree. It is different when you are fighting a war on foreign land, having to ship or fly your troops over.

The Western allies lacked the capacity to bring a million troops to battle at once. Yet this was how Kiev and Minsk both played out. Both battles having more than 1/2 a million people on each side fighting.

And yes, I would imagine the Germans did have to fight harder against the Soviets. There were a heck of a lot more of them.

 

[javacontour]

Nature of the battles as well. When you look at such battles and even Stalingrad, they were bloody protracted sieges, IIRC. And you are right, you park a million folks with lethal weapons pointed at one another serving leaders who thought nothing of the lives of the troops and the bloodbath in the east was bound to happen.

Then you repeat this pattern again and again in major cities and the body counts get real big.

How much had Hitler thinned his defenses in the west to try to turn the tide in the east?

I suspect at some point, German leadership said we are going to lose, so we will not fight as hard against the US/UK because they will go easier on us than the Soviets. So my comment wasn't as much about how many folks were there, but the strategic decision who do you want to surrender to, Soviets or US/UK.

I think there were even attempts to surrender to just the Western Allies, but they were refused.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Nature of the battles as well. When you look at such battles and even Stalingrad, they were bloody protracted sieges, IIRC. And you are right, you park a million folks with lethal weapons pointed at one another serving leaders who thought nothing of the lives of the troops and the bloodbath in the east was bound to happen.

Then you repeat this pattern again and again in major cities and the body counts get real big.

How much had Hitler thinned his defenses in the west to try to turn the tide in the east?

I suspect at some point, German leadership said we are going to lose, so we will not fight as hard against the US/UK because they will go easier on us than the Soviets. So my comment wasn't as much about how many folks were there, but the strategic decision who do you want to surrender to, Soviets or US/UK.

I think there were even attempts to surrender to just the Western Allies, but they were refused.


Gotcha. I think we are on the same page

 

[Y_K]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Why would anyone thank Churchill for something America did? And what does Iraq/Afghanistan have to do with WW2? Or nazi veneration?


Churchill. You simply do not know widely known facts. Do not take it personally. Most Americans do not know History, which is good. They are like children in a sandbox, who have short history and get along quite well: no thousand year old rancours, etc. US did not want to be involved in European theater at all. You can read on British Security Coordination - BSC. David Nyles, Ernest Cuneo, Hadley Cantril and mr Gallup himself worked hard on manipulating the Gallup polls in order to make the idea of going to Europe acceptable by the public. And the US public was largely anti-semitic. No Jews and Negro signs on country club entrances. You could also read on St Louis affair. The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 937 German Jewish refugees after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted to various countries of Europe. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in Concentration Camps. So, the fairy tale argument of humanitarian nature of action does not hold much water.
While analyzing Gallup results in 1943, Cantril came up with the startling observation that FDR's prospects of peace. If peace was at hand in 1944, FDR would have serious trouble getting re-elected. He was asked by Niles if the results could be suppressed. Cantril replied that this was not his style "but I have tried to influence poll results by suggesting issues and questions the vote on which I was fairly sure would be on the right side".
As for Iraq/Afghanistan parallel it just shows the continuation of the same failed strategy.

Anyway, D-Day was 5 years too late and not as significant as Stalingrad or Kursk. Rommel was far superior as a tactician than Patton, but you need to know more than Hollywood tells you. The name for The Second Front has word 'Second' in it.

The North-Atlantic convoys were heroic operation and the US lease of the equipment to USSR played a big role.

 

[andrewg]

I really didn't want to get the thread involved into what nation contributed more or incurred more casualties, etc. I really just wanted to know why the current and post-war Germans seem to have such a destructive attitude toward historical building sites relating to the Third Reich. I'll never find it reasonable to destroy things of historical significance (within reason, of course). I hear plenty of reasons of a less than concrete nature as to why this happens....but nothing truly valid or unfettered with emotional bias. Yes...that time period was destructive in the extreme. I get that. But as I've said, I will never grasp why (in an intellectual sense and when considering historical significance) a building need be completely demolished leaving NO trace....a grave (actually many) must be dug up and moved in secret....a symbol is made illegal....a book is against the law...etc.
Perhaps I must need to be a German, born and raised, to understand better.

 

[Rick in PA]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...While modern day Germans are not proud of their Nazi past, there is no denying that they were an incredible force.


This is an interesting point, possibly germane to the original question. My understanding is that Hitler played on nationalistic pride (a pride that was wounded in WWI) to rise to power. The Germany of WWII was an incredible force. It would be all too easy to glorify this, too easy for an unscrupulous leader to rise to power, and too easy for history to repeat itself. Perhaps this could be (at least in part) a reason behind why the suppression of history started. Why would it continue? Things become institutionalized.

 

[Win]

You should read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Shirer despised the Nazis and that's apparent in his writing, but it's factually accurate.

I think The New Order is the chapter that goes into quite a bit of detail about the various slaughters of the Jews and east Europeans, and the plans for a cleansed Europe.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour, do you think the US would have gotten involved?

There certainly were some rather significant battles before the US was ever involved in WWII. The battle of Kiev comes to mind, where the Germans slaughtered some 616,304 Soviets. In contrast, the US lost 125,847 in the entire Normandy campaign.


I think it was inevitable. I doubt many more Greer/Reuben James/Kearny/SS Robin Moor incidents would of been tolerated.

Pearl Harbor though didn't drag us into WW2. Hitler's declaration of war, (For prestige, as the terms of the pact with Japan did not require it.) is what did it.

But if we're going to compare battles such as Kiev, Vyzama, Kharkov in 42, etc to US involvement, then the same could be said about Poland, 1940 in the West, the Balkins 1941, the whole Africa/Italy campaign.

We're getting off the thread subject

Well come on, going OT on BITOG is par for the course

My mention of US involvement was simply due to how it gets portrayed by Hollywood, which is what the other poster mentioned.

Every country has their own WW2 story, that's for certain. I think his point was simply that some of the European battles get ignored, whilst the ones where the US was involved are given the limelight, and perhaps a disproportionate amount of it.

The Soviets lost the most lives by a massive margin. Battles like Kiev and Minsk show us why. While modern day Germans are not proud of their Nazi past, there is no denying that they were an incredible force.


True enough

Oh, I know how history gets portrayed in different countries. From what I remember of my time in school, the roles of the other countries were dimished or barely mentioned. I know that Ike didn't win the war. But I didn't learn that in school.

David Glantz is of the opinion that without the second front, Soviet soldiers would of been bathing in the Atlantic by the end of 1945. I tend to agree. Recently also, the Russians have given more the role of Lend Lease more acknowledgement than was allowed pre glasnost/perestrokia.

Sure, the Whermacht did perform well, except for Russia. We could devote a thread just to the mistakes they made. From the false belief that they would collapse when the door got kicked in to how ill prepared Germany was for a long war to how the deeper they got into Russia, the longer the front got to just how both sides mobilized their resources. (Russia conscripted almost 30,000,000 for the armed forces.)

Russian history, especially WW2, is a long standing hobby of mine.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Why would anyone thank Churchill for something America did? And what does Iraq/Afghanistan have to do with WW2? Or nazi veneration?


Churchill. You simply do not know widely known facts. Do not take it personally. Most Americans do not know History, which is good. .


Yeah well this American does know history. Especially military history. WW2 in paticular. Churchill doesn't deserve any credit for American deeds. Nor does he deserve credit for getting America into the war.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Rick in PA
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...While modern day Germans are not proud of their Nazi past, there is no denying that they were an incredible force.


This is an interesting point, possibly germane to the original question. My understanding is that Hitler played on nationalistic pride (a pride that was wounded in WWI) to rise to power. The Germany of WWII was an incredible force. It would be all too easy to glorify this, too easy for an unscrupulous leader to rise to power, and too easy for history to repeat itself. Perhaps this could be (at least in part) a reason behind why the suppression of history started. Why would it continue? Things become institutionalized.

Interesting point and more on topic to my original question. Perhaps BECAUSE of the astounding rise of Germany after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty (and the unfortunately harsh limitations/reparations placed upon them by the victors), modern Germany is still very well aware of that blind danger. But I would think with Germany being so prosperous and an economic leader in Europe, the same worries about what happened back then would be unjustified. I mean there is no current need for Germany to seek out or repeat it's mistakes. It's not suffering nor in a state of humiliation. But yet....they really still seem to fear a repeat as though they suffer from a phobia. Don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to slight Germany in any way. I'm just trying to have a better understanding of why they are so adamantly fearful of repeating or even shining much light on the past. Certainly not ALL things German from that era were bad or negative.

 

[Spazdog]

It hasn't been long enough since the reunification of Germany to have one German mindset about it.

The Brits and Americans made certain the West Germans remembered the past. It was not easy, pretty, or nice.

The Soviets dictated that the Nazi era was the history of the West. They taught the East Germans to see themselves as innocent of that history. Ironic considering the police state that was East Germany. It was not easy, pretty, or nice either.

It'll probably be another generation before there are just "Germans". Not East. Not West. Very few want to go back to the East German way so the eradication will likely continue.

The Imperial Japanese would often plant cherry trees on enemy land as a symbol that they have been conquered. The Republic of Korea (South Korea)chopped down most of the Imperial Japanese cherry trees in '95 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of their liberation. Eradicated them.
The Japanese gave Washington DC over 3,000 cherry trees in 1912. To the best of my knowledge, they still stand to this day and bloom in the spring.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


The Japanese gave Washington DC over 3,000 cherry trees in 1912. To the best of my knowledge, they still stand to this day and bloom in the spring.




http://www.nps.gov/cherry/cherry-blossom-history.htm

December 11, four cherry trees were cut down in suspected retaliation for the Japanese attack against the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The exact reason for the vandalism never was substantiated. In hopes of preventing future damage during the Second World War, the trees were referred to as the "Oriental" flowering cherry trees

 

[tribocessive]

i would like to remind all of the history buffs that winston churchill was integrally involved in the creation of the "nation" of modern iraq , after WWI; everything is connected and everything is connected to oil; and of course, we can thank the germans for synthetic motor oils.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: andrewg

Certainly not ALL things German from that era were bad or negative.


Not all. But it *far* outweighed the good.

 

[expat]

Check out "Jurgen the German" on you tube, I'm not sure if the humour of this skit will fully translate, but it does illustrate some of the insecurity many Germans feel about the events of the last century.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
The Germans teach about it in their schools.

The Japanese, however, have banned it from their schools. Re-written their history books, and are shocked when they come overseas and learn that their country wholeheartedly participated in mass murder/genocide.

The German laws exist because they are tired of dealing with nut jobs.
The Japanese laws exist out of arrogance and ignorance.


Not sure about in Germany, but in Japan the right wing nationalists are a very powerful group that controls the financial and economy, and a lot of political influence. This group of people wasn't losing power after Japan loses WWII, and think they only screw up by attacking the US (instead of allying with the axis). They though that had they stick with East Asia they might have a chance of conquering and holding the gain.

We still have a military base there not just as a deterrence against Russia, North Korea, and China, and Japan is still not allowed to have a military other than a self defense force for a reason. We do not trust that they gave up their conquest and we believe that they are only sorry for getting caught.

 

[Mamala Bay]

Most British today are ashamed of past colonization and imperialism. As a matter of fact the period of British colonization is not taught in British secondary school anymore.
There are a lot of consequences of imperialism.

Japan had learned from the British on imperialism and colonization and wanted to seek dominance as a power in Asia. After the war you need to look at generations. The newer generation did not live through the pain after the WW2 defeat you can very well expect any generation to feel the defeat, the pride as a nation. The newer generation had to take over for they were far more intelligent in global interaction from the past.