I was talking to a German friend the other day and he was telling me of an interesting facet of WWII I hadn't really heard of before. In the dying days of WWII Hitler wanted to exterminate the entire German race. In his beliefs, the Germans were defeated, ergo they cannot be the ubermensch and in fact were an inferior race. Therefore, they deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. Hence, his actions in his last days such as destroying infrastructure, a refusal to allow women and children to evacuate etc. were because he wanted to leave nothing to allow the Germans to rebuild after the war ended. He wanted them all to die or at least be scattered to the wind. Hence in a way the allies aided the Germans after the war may have been the best revenge against Hitler :) Can anyone else confirm this?

He also flooded the subway tunnels where German civillians were hiding.

This is a misinterpretation of Hitler's motives. Hitler was disillusioned with the outcome of the war (defeat). He actually believed that this was due to treachery and/or incompetence within his own ranks, not a racial inferiority of Germans. (It's ironic that the only incompetence was his own.) He realized the imminent defeat, and he wanted all Germans to go down in a blaze of glory. (Once again, ironic that he went down in suicide, not glory.)

Yeah, Hitler had, by the end, somehow realised the war was lost.
He (being a Wagner man) wanted to Germans to go like in the Ring trilogy-the Gotterdammrung (Twilight of the Gods) in a huge epic battle.
By the end, Hitler was a trembling, demented man, and thoguth the Germans were worthless. He also "knew" the Germans had gone along with him voluntarily.
I don't know if this is a true quote of his, but in the film Downfall he says
"If the war is lost, it is immaterial if the German people survive. I will not shed a tear for them. They have deserved nothing better".

Beevor comments on this in his book on Berlin noting that on the 19th March Hitler issued what became known as the "Nero" order. Hitler called for the destruction of Bridges, factories and pretty much anything that the enemy might be able to use. Speer argued against this, originally saying that their destruction meant "eliminating all further possibility for the German people to survive". Hitler replied "This time you will recieve a written reply to your memorandum. If the war is lost, the people will also be lost [and] it is not necessary to worry about their needs for elemental survival. On the contrary it is best for us to destroy even those things. For the nation has proved to be weak, and the future belongs entirely to the strong people of the east. Whatever remains after this battle is in any case only the inadequates, because the good ones will be dead."

The next day Speer recieved written confirmation "All military, transport, communication and supply facilities, as well as material assets in the territory of the Reich" were to be destroyed. He later returned to Berlin where Hitler, realising that Speer was a "defeatist" attempted to send him on leave. Speer tried to resign but was refused the chance. He retained control of all the explosives needed to carry out the task though and thwarted attempts to use it for another day. On the 29th Speer tried to get Guderian and some others to support his attempts to oppose Hitler on this but had little luck.

Later that day Hitler warned Speer that his continuing opposition could be considered treasonous, and asked him if he believed the war could still be won. Speer said he did not, and Hitler tried further to persuade him before sending him away for a day to rethink his position. Clearly unwilling to loose one of the few competent ministers still loyal to him, Hitler contacted Speer earlier than planned, and Speer decided to take a different line this time. He told Hitler he stood firmly behind him, but he could do much more if Hitler confirmed Speer's authority to carry out the March 19th Decree (the "Nero" order basically) and Hitler agreed, eager to have Speer back in the fold.

Speer and a number of Army officers then continued to curb attempts to carry out the order for the rest of the war, most notably in Berlin itself.

That's roughly what Beevor has to say on the matter anyway, so the Downfall quote is quite accurate in tone and getting across Hitler's feelings at the time.

At the very least it's known that Hitler wanted everything in Germany (Factories etc.) to be destroyed, if not to kill all Germans (Might have been his intetion but i don't know) but to atleast prevent the Red Army & Soviets from using them.

Ironically Speer had organised that he and others flee Berlin, to happen when a "sign" happened.
It happened as the Red Army closed around Berlin.
The "sign"? That the Berlin Orchesstra would play the final scene of the Gottedammerung.
I don't know if this is true or not.

In the words of eyewitness who describe hilters mood.
"It seemed he wanted to dragg the entire german people with him down into the abyss."

He was both deluded and cowardly but still sane. He was busy sending 12 yearolds to there deaths.

Ironically Speer had organised that he and others flee Berlin, to happen when a "sign" happened.
It happened as the Red Army closed around Berlin.
The "sign"? That the Berlin Orchesstra would play the final scene of the Gottedammerung.
I don't know if this is true or not.

I'm not sure about the sign thing, but it's true that when the Red Army begun their final attack on Berlin the Berlin Orchestra was executing The Twilight of the Gods, and the last memers of Hitler's Youth distributed poison pills for the population. The fall of Berlin was a pretty ugly scene.

In the words of eyewitness who describe hilters mood.
"It seemed he wanted to dragg the entire german people with him down into the abyss."

He was both deluded and cowardly but still sane. He was busy sending 12 yearolds to there deaths.


I don't think he was sane in his final moments...

Well I don´t think he was sane at least after ww1...

Adler

He also flooded the subway tunnels where German civillians were hiding.

At most 100/200 where killed when the SS engineers blow them up, hardly wanting to exterminate the German race

Didnt he, in his will, testament his money (from sales of Mein Kampf mostly) to the German state, though? This would suggest that he wanted there to be a German state after his death and felt some belevolence towards it.

Well, he did name Admiral Dönitz as his successor (Seeing as he had lost faith in all others of his Ministery) so if he had wanted for the entire German race to be killed, he would have named some fanatical nazi to the task to keep on fighting.

Doenitz was probably more chosen because he came from a branch of the armed forces that hadn't been overly involved in the conspiracies against Hitler, Doenitz hadn't yet abandonned Hitler, and he happened to be outside Berlin at the time. Just about the only other highup who hadn't betrayed him yet was probably Bormann but he was stuck with Hitler too, making transferance of power to him a bit dumb.

Also Dönitz was a man outside the government, only a soldier. He was also a man to be able to negotiate with from the allied side. I don´t know if these sensible reasons had indeed any impact on the decision of the so called Führer.
Nevertheless Dönitz tried to build up a provisorical government after he heard about Hitler´s death and quickly ended the war. Also he sent Himmler away when he came to him demanding to become a minister. He had a pistol under his papers aiming on Himmler and several navy soldiers were hidden in the buildings ready to fire on the SS. Himmler went away without any success in his demands. Also Dönitz abolished the Nazi emblems as German emblems and ordered an investigation of the Holocaust by the prosecution authorities. However Dönitz was captured on May 23 1945. As he was the provisorical president this act is very questionable (at best) to international law as the whole occupation government was.
Later Dönitz was sentenced to 10 years in prison At Nuremberg. He did not stop the shooting of British commandos after he became president, he did not stop the slave labour on German yards and he was preparing his Uboats for war. All three were loughable since there was no incident commandos were shot after Hitler´s death. Also the yards were not working any more as well as preparing his soldiers for war is no crime but a neccessarity for a soldier. So the statement of his lawyer, Flottenrichter (Navy Judge= Captain) Otto Kranzbühler was very true when he said that 10 years seemed to be the minimum penalty for an innocent at Nuremberg.

Adler

All three were loughable since there was no incident commandos were shot after Hitler´s death. Also the yards were not working any more as well as preparing his soldiers for war is no crime but a neccessarity for a soldier

He wasn't exactly in power long enough for either to happen. Frankly I take the view that they threw him in jail as a representative from the navy in order to show an example that inaction and blaming your superiors isn't good enough.

I think they put him into jail because of two reasons: revenge for the Uboat war and they had to legitimate the occupation of Germany. If he was innocent he had to be freed, so that he could have demanded power, as the provisorical president, at least to make German wide elections like he planned to do. That was not in the interest of the Allies. So he was condemned. Siegerjustiz!

Adler

I think that the explanation I gave would justify throwing him in jail whatever the actual other motivations. Some sense of making all aspects of the Reich know that they were guilty was needed IMO rather than let them escape blame because you couldn't pin specific crimes onto them. I'd rather have seen him jailed as an example than freed because he could wash his hands of it all and blame Hitler/Himmler/Goering.

I don't care what you call that, or particularly what you think to ideals where behind it, I'm just glad they did it.

Donitz was a die hard Nazi who got lucky at Nuremburg. Toward the end he was basically bidding with Goering and Himmler for Hitlers favour. In April 45 Hitler would demand more troops and these 3 would bid 10000, or whatever (Goering managed 100000).

These weren't trained troops but naval reserves, clerks etc essentially sacrificed to Russian armor and thrown away as fodder. He basically ordered the deaths of the men under his command for political gain.

Yes he started this attack. He was an anti communist indeed. But to say this is a crime is hardly true. The chances were minimal but still existing. Also you don´t know why he ordered that attack. Perhaps he only wanted to free Berlin out of Russian control. Either way even if they were successful Hitler would have been dead. Sure Dönitz was a soldier but you can´t blame him more. Amazingly you still think that all Germans were Nazis in that times. Dönitz did not participated in any action concerning the Holocaust. Also as I repeat he abolished the Nazi symbols, the Nazi flag, ordered an investigation in the KZs and IIRC also abolished the NSDAP. Also he planned to make elections. Nevertheless nobody knows would have happened if Dönitz was not captured.
PH, I am studying law. So a man can only be put into prison if he commited a crime. So, PH, what crime did he commit? Not killing Hitler? Then nearly all Germans commited the crime. Killing Hitler would be justified but a duty to do so, in the sense of the criminal law, does not exist. Blaming his superiors? IIRC he never blamed someone. You say the navy had to be punished but they only fought a war with bravery until the very end. No, you need a real crime that he commited. And all mentioned are ridiculous.
Nuremberg was a neccessary trial. It was also an outstanding idea. However the execution of this trial was partly everything else than fair. There is much to discuss on that topic so I stop here.

Adler

So, PH, what crime did he commit?

Supporting a regime that was entirely evil lead by a man who was clearly insane without making any attempt to remove it despite being able to do so. Clearly not all Germans were guilty of this, just some of the more powerful ones. Carrying out criminal acts on behalf of said regime without (to my knowledge) raising complaint. If you accept that no-one but those giving the orders were to blame for the crimes then that is in affect blaming someone else for something Doenitz, Raeder and many others should have stood up against.

Btw, if you'd read my post you'd note that I was very specific that I wasn't basing my argument on what the Nayy had specifically done, but it's overall support for Hitler and co. In that light I find their bravery rather irrelevant to my point.

However, let us at this point turn to what the judgements actually said. The judgement on Doenitz found him guilty on two counts (Kudos to a guy called Marmaduke on another forum for this info) :

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes - These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labour, and use of outlaws weapons."

To support they cited a memo signed by Doenitz in 1944 which stated:

"Furthermore, I propose reinforcing the shipyard working parties by prisoners from the concentration camps, and as a special measure for relieving the present shortage of coppersmiths, especially in U-boat construction, I propose to divert coppersmiths from the construction of locomotives to ship-building."

It also states:


"Since, elsewhere, measures for exacting atonement taken against whole working parties amongst whom sabotage occurred, have proved successful, and, for example, the shipyard sabotage in France was completely suppressed, possibly similar measures for the Scandinavian countries will come under consideration."

As for the accusation that he was tried on the basis of his submarine force's antics, the judgement said specifically:

“In view of all of the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at night in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that Nation entered the war, the sentence of Donitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.”

So yeah, he was found guilty because of his U-Boats...

The Donitz 'regime' didn't exactly edify itself anyway; practically it's only creditable act was to strip Himmler of his authority.

The party was not banned or disolved - contrary to what Adler stated earlier - and pictures of Hitler were still in place in the government offices in Flensburg, and tribunals continued. That might be what one would expect of such a 'government', but it doesn't endear Donitz in any way to me.

Towards the end of WW2, the Germans started conscripting teenage kids.

A few such conscipts turned up to a navy base to report for duty, but
dicovered shortly after arrival that Germany had surrendered so they
decided that as the war was over, they would go home, but they were
caught, and quickly shot without a trial on Doenitz orders as deserters.

Now Doenitz had surrendered to Montgomery and yet there he was
ordering the executions of german teenagers for no useful purpose.

PH, at first there was a morale duty to go in opposition to Hitler. That is clear. But a morale duty is not the same like a duty in the sense of penal law and it was ever dangerous in times it was at least considered so.
Your next point is when he stated that slave workers had to work in the yards. But this statement is much more a statement to defend him. He was not in charge of the yards. So he could not demand nor forbid slave worker. This statement can also be interpreted in the way that he tried to ablolish slave works in the yards.
The next point is the point "count two": There was no law in German nor in French or even Russian penal codes to wage an agressive war. I heard there was some in British and US law, but I am very sceptical. That´s why this can´t be used as the rule "nulla poena sine lege scripta" (no penalty without written law) was clearly broken. Additionally it is too uncertain to be useable in criminal law as the definition of an agressive war is too vague breaking the rule of "nulla poena sine lege certa". At least he was damned for preparing his soldiers for war, but this can´t be any base for a crime unles criminalising soldiers in toto.
The last statement aquitted Dönitz from the submarine warfare because of the Allied using the very same tactics. Nevertheless IMO the accuse of Dönitz was political motivated and was bare of any juristical fundamented accuse.

Hamlet, Dönitz indeed banned the NSDAP, however the orders were not executed because of the lack of time and the neccessarity of keeping the offices working whereever possible. Keep in mind that the allies let the local officials working for the first time after the surrender and that a chaos occured as they were withdrawn from service. That´s why Dönitz´s order was not executed. However, he reintroduced the old German flag as well as repainted his plane. That the old emblems were still there was also a cause of the circumstances.

EdwardTKing, 3 men were killed after the war that´s true. However IIRC it was not Dönitz giving this order to shoot nor could he stop all bad things the Nazis introduced. Please give me a source if you have more infos about that.

Adler

Well even if Donitz did change his stripes he left it a bit late- staring imminent defeat in the face, being more or less confined to his "capital". He may not of deserved the death penalty but he was one of the more odious nazi officials.

but he was one of the more odious nazi officials.

I'd say that Dönitz was a more of a "lesser" nazi when compared to say Himmler, Göering and Ribbentrop. He was atleast sensible enough to stop fighting the (western) allies after he got to power. Plus he was not part of the den of conspiricies in Berlin and he did not commit crimes against humanity. (Commanding the U-Boat fleet and later the whole of Kriegsmarine does not really make one a war criminal) Plus he was not part of the Officers & Ministers in Berlin that planned the Invasion of Poland.

That is clear. But a morale duty is not the same like a duty in the sense of penal law and it was ever dangerous in times it was at least considered so.

The allies disagreed, I happen to think they were right.

Your next point is when he stated that slave workers had to work in the yards. But this statement is much more a statement to defend him. He was not in charge of the yards. So he could not demand nor forbid slave worker.

But heartily recommending their use is something I believe that should be illegal, and if it was not illegal at the time, then I have no problem with the allies retroactively making it illegal post war. I don't wish to see war criminals escape justice because no-one had yet formalised in law that it was illegal to starve and work slave workers to death, or no-one had said it was illegal to shoot POWs/Civilians in retaliation.

This statement can also be interpreted in the way that he tried to ablolish slave works in the yards.

Are we reading the same statement? :hmm:

That´s why this can´t be used as the rule "nulla poena sine lege scripta" (no penalty without written law) was clearly broken

See my above reply.

The last statement aquitted Dönitz from the submarine warfare because of the Allied using the very same tactics. Nevertheless IMO the accuse of Dönitz was political motivated and was bare of any juristical fundamented accuse.

So you think people that use (or suggest the use of) slave labour and propose violent retaliation to stop commando/resistance attacks should be allowed to escape scot free? You accuse the allies of charging Doenitz unfairly yet it is clear he was involved in or supporting some of the lesser crimes of the Reich which would be more than enough to warrant his sentence regardless of the actions of his Navy, so I don't find his judgement either unfair nor based on the actions of the navy in the war.

I think the only reason why you continue to think it was out of spite over u-boats is because you refuse to see it any other way.

Plus he was not part of the den of conspiricies in Berlin and he did not commit crimes against humanity

What is the use of slave labour if not a crime against humanity?

But heartily recommending their use is something I believe that should be illegal, and if it was not illegal at the time, then I have no problem with the allies retroactively making it illegal post war. I don't wish to see war criminals escape justice because no-one had yet formalised in law that it was illegal to starve and work slave workers to death, or no-one had said it was illegal to shoot POWs/Civilians in retaliation.

Not anything Speer, or for that matter, dear old Von Braun, who was aquitted, didn't do.

Indeed, Von Braun however was too useful wasn't he? ;)

I believe Speer was imprisoned at Nuremburg, probably on quite similar grounds also. Speer had running arguments with Hitler over the use of slave labour, arguing against it, though to be fair he mostly did so on the grounds of pragmatism rather than morality.

Indeed, Von Braun however was too useful wasn't he? ;)

I believe Speer was imprisoned at Nuremburg, probably on quite similar grounds also. Speer had running arguments with Hitler over the use of slave labour, arguing against it, though to be fair he mostly did so on the grounds of pragmatism rather than morality.
Speer was (for 20 years, I believe), though he was one of the repentant Nazis.
As for Wernher, he got good use made out of him, in exchange for commodities.

He certainly was, but as the man directly responsible for the war industry in the wars last years he was also directly responsible for the use of slave labour and labour from concentration camps. It's probably worth noting that his repentance was also extremely late in it's arrival, only coming after the confirmation of the Nero order.

He certainly was, but as the man directly responsible for the war industry in the wars last years he was also directly responsible for the use of slave labour and labour from concentration camps. It's probably worth noting that his repentance was also extremely late in it's arrival, only coming after the confirmation of the Nero order.

This is a straightforward statement/question, and one which I don't know mcuh about, so don't call me an apologist or anything ;)
Would it be possible that this slave labour were actually kept in better conditions than the camps?

I'd say it probably not something that it's possible to generalise on as not all camps employed the same methods. For example I heard that 20,000 (roughly 1/3) died working in Penemunde camp, mostly from starvation, being shot or being worked to death. In that light such a camp was in essence little different from some of the concentration camps, after all many concentration camps were attached to factories or similar which they provided labour to. This makes it difficult to detach the subject of slave labour from that of the camps as the two are so strongly linked.There may have been some slave labour camps were the conditions were better than the average concentration camp, but the general impression I've got is that they were not too far removed in brutality and treatment.

Either way I'd suggest that promoting the use of slave labour is something I'd willingly see someone serve 10 years in jail for, regardless of the laws in use at the time.

I'd say it probably not something that it's possible to generalise on as not all camps employed the same methods. For example I heard that 20,000 (roughly 1/3) died working in Penemunde camp, mostly from starvation, being shot or being worked to death. In that light such a camp was in essence little different from some of the concentration camps, after all many concentration camps were attached to factories or similar which they provided labour to. This makes it difficult to detach the subject of slave labour from that of the camps as the two are so strongly linked.There may have been some slave labour camps were the conditions were better than the average concentration camp, but the general impression I've got is that they were not too far removed in brutality and treatment.

Either way I'd suggest that promoting the use of slave labour is something I'd willingly see someone serve 10 years in jail for, regardless of the laws in use at the time.

Yeah, IG Farben and that.

But there were two types of "slave labour", weren't there.
There was the real slave labour from Concentration Camps, and then there was the slave labour from occupied territories (sending young Frenchman to work in factories and on farms etc. who were treated reasonably well).

Agreed however within the second category there would also be the exact opposite. Something like 90% of those in the Peenemunde camp for example were foreign (not sure if they came from concentration camps or not though), therefore it's certain that the treatment of foreign labour was not uniformly good or bad. I'd tend towards the theory that the slave labour the Reich used was in the main closer to the penemunde example than the French one. We cannot determine which Doenitz was supporting either way, but either way would warrant a prison term IMO given the nature of the work he implies.

Agreed however within the second category there would also be the exact opposite. Something like 90% of those in the Peenemunde camp for example were foreign (not sure if they came from concentration camps or not though), therefore it's certain that the treatment of foreign labour was not uniformly good or bad. I'd tend towards the theory that the slave labour the Reich used was in the main closer to the penemunde example than the French one. We cannot determine which Doenitz was supporting either way, but either way would warrant a prison term IMO given the nature of the work he implies.

When I talk of the second type I mean the compulsary "Reichs service" for occupied territories, or whatever it was called.

Well I don't know the specifics behind that so if you have some stuff on it I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me :)

I was basically just saying that to my knowledge not all foriegn workers in the likes of Penemunde were former inmates of the concentration camp system, therefore not all foreign workers got an easy ride, just as not all foreign workers got starved and shot as you pointed out.

One of the key reasons my grandfather joined the Maquis is because he didn't want to serve in the German factories.

He also flooded the subway tunnels where German civillians were hiding.
he didnt do that to kill people tho, he did that for a good reason..
the soviets chold travel under german lines useing the tunels. so he flooded them, something i whold have done allso

Speer probably should have got the death penalty. How genuine after the war was he on repentence?

Speer probably should have got the death penalty. How genuine after the war was he on repentence?
I think he was alright. He served 20 years in spandau I think, but smggled a book on the Third Reich out. He was after considered the primary source on the Third Reich and Hitler.
Unlike others who at Nuremberg feigned religion (I can't remember who did this), Speer was the only guy who really admitted the blame, rather than absolving it.

He was the only defendant to plead guilty to the charges, but there's still some debate as to how genuine his repentance was, or if it was merely to save his own skin. As the former Arnaments Minister I wouldn't be suprised if he'd have got the death penalty had he tried the alternative.

Dan van der Vat wrote a book The Good Nazi: The Life & Lies of Albert Speer. This is a good biography of the self-described "second man in the Reich." Albert Speer has long occupied a singular niche in history: that of the "good Nazi," a decent and civilized man whose first love was architecture and who wished nothing more than to rebuild Germany from the misery of WWI and the worldwide depression of the 1930s. He skillfully cultivated this image until his death in 1981. Speer willingly conceded a general responsibility for his role in the Reich, and even admitted in the '70s that he had some inkling of what was happening to the Jews, but he never admitted personal responsibility for the Holocaust or the war. Van der Vat begins with a vexing question: If Speer was Hitler's right-hand man, how could he possibly claim ignorance of the genocide that was (in the words of the author) "the driving force" of the regime? Considering Speer's responsibilities heading the ministry of armaments during the war--one highly dependent on slave labor--his claims of ignorance are hard to believe. Yet many did believe him. Gitta Sereny, in Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, seems to accept his remorse as genuine, and she finds her subject sympathetic. No less an authority than Simon Wiesenthal also believed Speer. The highly respected German biographer of Hitler, Joachim Fest, and the social psychologist Erich Fromm concurred. Van der Vat is immune to Speer's charms, even after having interviewed the Nazi in 1976. Beginning with a serious study of Speer as architect, van der Vat proceeds to examine his role as minister of armaments. In that capacity, Speer was personally responsible for the evacuation of 75,000 German Jews as forced labor. Van der Vat shows that Speer not only knew of the Holocaust, he took advantage of it.

PH; first of all I misread the quotation you gave. Nevertheless Dönitz was in no way in charge of the workers. That was Speer. Dönitz was not responsible for this. And sabotage was also a violation of criminal law in other states...
The rule nulla poena sine lege is the basic rule of criminal law since the Romans. Otherwise someone could shoot you for the "crime" lying in a bed last night, a crime he has just defined. This rule is so fundamental that all actions against that are (in a naturalistic point of view) non existing in the eyes of the law.

Adler

Nevertheless Dönitz was in no way in charge of the workers. That was Speer. Dönitz was not responsible for this.

He was though reccomending their use, so the fact that he wasn't in charge of the workers is rather irrelevant.

And sabotage was also a violation of criminal law in other states...

Many other states don't massacre civilians in retaliation for it though.


The rule nulla poena sine lege is the basic rule of criminal law since the Romans

I know what your saying but frankly don't care. The fact of the matter is that if the allies accepted this as fact they would have been forced to let the entire heads of the 3rd Reich escape the justice they deserved simply because no-one had yet thought to make slave labour and genocide a crime. So no, I don't care that there was no law against it then, the actions of many in the third reich blatantly deserved punishment, so your comparison is ridiculous.

What is the use of slave labour if not a crime against humanity?

He was not the one who started that policy, the slave labour in industries and elsewhere were under Speers controll.

He was not the one who started that policy, the slave labour in industries and elsewhere were under Speers controll.

With it would seem the approval of Doenitz later on. I wouldn't say it mattered who started it if Doenitz agreed with it.

With it would seem the approval of Doenitz later on.

I don't think Dönitz was in power long enough to even fully adress the issue.

That memorandum dates back to 1944 when he reccomended the use of slave labour from concentration camps in shipyards. He didn't have to be in total power to be in favour of it, and if he was against the idea it would be reasonable to assume he wouldn't be suggesting it.

PH, nearly everything the Nazis did concerning Holocaust and other evil things, were forbidden to German law. So there was in no way a need to break that rule- with one exception: the starting of an agressive war. You have to keep the rules of a law state or you are not better than dictators and other extremists. Otherwise you can be punished for something which is not forbidden! This rule IS the very basic rule for civilized criminal law.
Dönitz demanding of more workers were made to Speer. He was in charge of the slave worker, not Dönitz. Speer was the man who organized the production of war materials, also in the yards. So it is very relevant for a criminal action if Dönitz was in charge or Speer. You can only blame someone for the actions he did. Dönitz demanded workers from other production sites. So even an incitement is not able to be seen here. Dönitz was never in charge of the worker so he can´t be blamed for that.
Nevertheless I think we can argue here for hours and weeks and don´t come further. You should perhaps read some material about criminal law and law philosophy before continuing this discurs.

Adler

He's not just asking for more workers, he's specifically asking for more slave labour from concentration camps, and to me there's a large difference. It also shows that Doenitz may to some degree have known about the camps. In my opinion to reccomend or support the use of slave labour is a crime that would justify such a sentence, so I'm not accepting the whole "my superior is to blame" excuse you forward because it just doesn't wash.

It does, of course depend whether Doenitz asked specifically asked for conentration camp labour, or extermination camp labour.

I don't see why it would make much difference to if it was slave labour or not.

My point is based on whether Doenitz was aware or not of the Final Solution.

Oh he was obviously aware of it, it depends on when he became aware of it. I'd still throw any man in jail for 10 years without any sorrow just for the support of slave labour and retaliation crimes though.

As I said, I don't hold with the "My superior was to blame/that wasn't my area of authority" excuse that many tried to use at Nuremburg.

Hamlet, Dönitz indeed banned the NSDAP, however the orders were not executed because of the lack of time and the neccessarity of keeping the offices working whereever possible. Keep in mind that the allies let the local officials working for the first time.

Not according to Ian Kershaw. Have you got a source for this?

@ Hamlet: Ian Kershaw is a goot source. I have to reread mines and for that I don´t have much time. Nevertheless WHAT I know exactly is that he banned the Nazi emblems and did reintroduce the old German flag. However this I read in an article a few years ago about these last years. I doubt there are many sources about that...

@ PH: The existance of KZ was commonly known to all. But what was going on in that not. Many Germans did not know what was going on there. I know a story of a German who heard BBC and the only broadcast about the Holocaust. He thought it was the worst kind of Propaganda he ever heard. Although he was an enemy of Hitler he could not believe that. However he did some researches on that topic. He needed over a year (!) to get the proof. He did intensive but secret researches. So if he needed a year a Grand admiral doing the same would have had lesser possibilities because of being supervised and his own work. To know the existance of that camps is not equal to know what was going on there.

Adler

To know the existance of that camps is not equal to know what was going on there.

I find it very hard to believe that someone with Doenitz's power would have thought they were holiday camps. He would have known something, and if he didn't he obviously didn't care to find out.

Well, he had power but that was a very, well, delicate topic. It was secret what was going on and if he tried to find something out he had to be very carefully much more than any other normal German perhaps. He would have risked his life- if he had doubts on the saying these KZ were "only" a kind of prison. But did he have the time to get doubts? I mean he was in charge of the German Navy away from the dirt of the Russian campaign- where he could have got doubts. But hardly in his position. So this was no real proof. So the only fact we have concerning his knowledge of the Holocaust was his advice on the presecution offices to investigate in the KZs- an advice that hardly was possible to execute since all KZs were in allied held territory in that time.

Adler

But did he have the time to get doubts?

He had two years in which he was in complete control of the Navy which had bases near many of the concentration camps. Whilst these would not have been the death camps like Auschwitz, the conditions in the labour camps would have left him in no doubt of the fact that the Nazi regime had no respect for the lives of those they used in slave labour. Anyone who had access to knowledge about even the labour/concentration camps and were sufficiently repulsed by them really shouldn't have been reccomending their use IMO. One would imagine that it would also drive anyone particularly against their nature into the hands of the anti-nazi movements in Germany, yet to my knowledge Doenitz showed no hints of opposing Hitler and his policies (outside of operational issues in relation to the Navy) until Hitler was already dead.

Too little, too late for my liking.

I simply can't believe stories like these. The nazis employed some 50,000 people in the operation of their concentration camps. It was a very large undertaking with way too many people involved to keep knowledge from spreading. Keep in mind that the people involved in this were not ashamed of it, so they didn't keep quiet out of shame. In other words, they talked to other people in the millitary.

Secondly, what is that story about someone in Germany needing a full year after the war to figure out whether the camps existed? The Americans were dragging the German civilians kicking and screaming into the camps to see the murders they were guilty of. They let them bury the layers of bodies in mass graves. If anyone was trying to figure out what was going on all they had to do was ask any American officer where the camps were and they could damn well go out and give a hand burying some bodies.

No one in Bosnia need to be puzzled about the locations of the mass graves there either, you know. Or the Gulag. Or Cambodhia. Or any other large scale murder operation. It was all known at the time by people who wanted to know. You have to be a fool not to realize when genocide is taking place in your back yard.


@ PH: The existance of KZ was commonly known to all. But what was going on in that not. Many Germans did not know what was going on there. I know a story of a German who heard BBC and the only broadcast about the Holocaust. He thought it was the worst kind of Propaganda he ever heard. Although he was an enemy of Hitler he could not believe that. However he did some researches on that topic. He needed over a year (!) to get the proof. He did intensive but secret researches. So if he needed a year a Grand admiral doing the same would have had lesser possibilities because of being supervised and his own work. To know the existance of that camps is not equal to know what was going on there.

Adler

First of all there was a rule to keep silence. Even those who were released out of KZs had to be absolutely silent. But indeed there were too many involved to keep all secret. Nevertheless it was a dictatorship that wanted to keep things hidden. So even the few that got out of this had to be at first belived and made popular. Also the SS who ruled these camps, were no Serbian soldateska and the other employees were under control of Gestapo. So it was much more difficultier to get infos than on the Balcan. Also a drunken man in a pub might not be the best source. As I said before the man had to spent one year in research to have the proof. He got infos first but the finaly proof he got not before over a year was over.
Also when the Allies lead the local population to the KZs many of them were really shocked not knowing what really was going on there (not all of couse). Another example is a South African woman who worked in several civil right councils. She admitted that she ever doubted on the shocks of Germans in these times being confrontated with the Holocaust. Until a few years. Although she was incorporated in the resistance against Apartheid she did not know some of the worst crimes.
Or Serbia. Until a few weeks most Serbians believed the "so called crimes" were only so called and only western propaganda. They really believed what was the Serbian propaganda said, even after Milosevic was captured. Until a movie in the TV was shown in which Serbian forces were shooting Bosnians. Filmed by Serbians. That was also a shock.
So don´t be too fast not to believe this.

Adler

Yet why did German civilians flee Russian forces? Most books I've read indicate they at least had an idea what had been going on. The scale of it may have been shocking but soldiers talk. In several books I have read a wehrmacht soldier on leave stood up in a tram in Berlin 45 and said something like "if the soviets do half as much to us as what we done to them there well be no Germans left alive". They had a reasonable idea of what was going to happen to them and why (atrocities on the eastern fromt).

Most Germans may have been ignorant of the specifics of the Holocaust but I doubt they were totally unaware of everything that went on. Where have the jews gone? All these foreign (slave) workers must be here for the pay etc. The KZs were used because soldiers weres having breakdowns- some of them must have talked to their wives, families, colleagues etc.

Anyone else read a book called "The Day the War Ended"? A German naval officer didn't beleve the propaganda so the Allies drove him to a concentration camp for a tour. Apparently he went back and told the others he was ashamed to be a German officer.

Yet why did German civilians flee Russian forces?

Do you have any idea what the Russian Soldiers did to the German & Polish civilians that they caught in East-Prussia, Pommern, Silesia and Poland?

The attrocities that the German military did to Russians was pretty much known. (This is a completely different thing to knowing the death camps) Plus there was the propaganda of Josef Göbbels. If you have read the book Berlin 1945 by Anthony Beevor, then you might have a clue as to why were the German civilians fleeing. All the women would have been raped (And the women that the Red Army caught were raped), and even more horrible revenge taken upon the local populance.


A German naval officer didn't beleve the propaganda so the Allies drove him to a concentration camp for a tour. Apparently he went back and told the others he was ashamed to be a German officer.

This also shows that not everyone knew what was going on in the camps.

Do you have any idea what the Russian Soldiers did to the German & Polish civilians that they caught in East-Prussia, Pommern, Silesia and Poland?

The attrocities that the German military did to Russians was pretty much known. (This is a completely different thing to knowing the death camps) Plus there was the propaganda of Josef Göbbels. If you have read the book Berlin 1945 by Anthony Beevor, then you might have a clue as to why were the German civilians fleeing. All the women would have been raped (And the women that the Red Army caught were raped), and even more horrible revenge taken upon the local populance.




This also shows that not everyone knew what was going on in the camps.

I've read the Berlin book by Anthony Beevor. While the actions of the red army were disgusting I can understand the reason for their actions. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.

While the actions of the red army were disgusting I can understand the reason for their actions.

The reason is very simple, revenge against German people and soldiers. And somehow the Polish civilians got they part of of the Russian revenge aswell.

The reason is very simple, revenge against German people and soldiers. And somehow the Polish civilians got they part of of the Russian revenge aswell.

Well theres probably several reasons for russian brutality. German treatment in the occupied territory, Soviet treatment of the average soldier, and the horror of the front. From my understanding the worst offenders were the poorly disciplined 2nd echlion troops made up of partisans, freed prisoners etc.

Secondly, what is that story about someone in Germany needing a full year after the war to figure out whether the camps existed?

It's not about the info. It's about what is allied propaganda and what is not. Those Germans who were dragged to the nearby KZ had little doubts. But someone in exile, who was used to the Nazi propaganda for a decade, will hardly believe such statements without personnal recherche.

Now, undoubtly, there wasn't much misinformation in the WAllies propaganda - but, how should the average German recognize that? In WW1, the WAllies really exceeded the Germans and Russians here...

And btw, most Germans mistrusted any propaganda in the end. At foremost, their own; unfortunately, that also lead to mistrust the reports of Red Army actions...while in this case unfortunately, Goebbels wasn't that wrong (after all, he knew what tey'd done to the Russians). Would have been better to flee, indeed.

Wasn't allied WW1 propaganda so over the top it had Germans systematically bayoneting babies and raping women etc in Belgium? One reason why the holocaust wasn't believed until to late/after the war.

Well theres probably several reasons for russian brutality. German treatment in the occupied territory, Soviet treatment of the average soldier, and the horror of the front. From my understanding the worst offenders were the poorly disciplined 2nd echlion troops made up of partisans, freed prisoners etc.

Well, the Red Army was quite brutal anyway, but I've read a book (Last Train to Berlin, Hasn-Peter Marland) about the surrendered Wehrmacht being sent to Russia.
He says that the front line Russians, those who had actually fought, were quite respectful, and relatively decent to the German troops,as they respected them as soldiers (as well as they'd have been too busy fighting).
However, the Russian rear echelon troops etc. were the ones responsible for the beatings and mistreatment.
In fact, this fellow and his friends had managed to find a German truck heading East, and loaded themselves into it, and turned around and drove west, behind the Advancing Red Army. At every checkpoint, they claimed to be ex-Wehrmacht captured at Stalingrad, or elsewhere, and had been in the use of the Russian army for a few years. They got quite far before a Russian officer didn't believe them, and jsut gave the a "Nice try, boys" before making them return east.

Well, the Red Army was quite brutal anyway, but I've read a book (Last Train to Berlin, Hasn-Peter Marland) about the surrendered Wehrmacht being sent to Russia.
He says that the front line Russians, those who had actually fought, were quite respectful, and relatively decent to the German troops,as they respected them as soldiers (as well as they'd have been too busy fighting).
However, the Russian rear echelon troops etc. were the ones responsible for the beatings and mistreatment.
In fact, this fellow and his friends had managed to find a German truck heading East, and loaded themselves into it, and turned around and drove west, behind the Advancing Red Army. At every checkpoint, they claimed to be ex-Wehrmacht captured at Stalingrad, or elsewhere, and had been in the use of the Russian army for a few years. They got quite far before a Russian officer didn't believe them, and jsut gave the a "Nice try, boys" before making them return east.

I try not to be to judgemental of the way the Russians behaved nor towards young Germans who joined the Nazi party. Atrocities happened with soldiers and I'm not sure we can judge them using todays morality. If we were born in those times who knows what we would have done and if we were born in different countries/circumstances whos to say we wouldn't have worn an SS/NKVD uniform or dropped bombs on civilians.

I try not to be to judgemental of the way the Russians behaved nor towards young Germans who joined the Nazi party. Atrocities happened with soldiers and I'm not sure we can judge them using todays morality. If we were born in those times who knows what we would have done and if we were born in different countries/circumstances whos to say we wouldn't have worn an SS/NKVD uniform or dropped bombs on civilians.

True, and for a front line soldier I wil never judge (though most of them respected their enemy in a professional sort of way), it's the MPs and such who take it upon themselves to exact revenge, or who decide to do something to prisoners.

You're missing my main point. I said that these things will be known - at least to a large degree - by people who *want* to know. The reason we had a nazi Germany in the first place is because most people acted like sheep and did what they were told - or even cheered on. When people want to listen to propaganda and want to hear about how they are right and all their 'enemies' are wrong, sure, they won't know a damn thing.

But people who want to know the truth will seek out information and deduce the brutal nature of reality. In Serbia people have been so nationalistic and closed minded it's a living proof of human nature to be sheep and follow a dictator. Consistently denying everything that opposes the propaganda they are/were fed. I am familiar with the Serbian tv broadcast and I find it absolutely tragic how closed minded they are to react like this is the first credible information they get on the atrocities. We'll see if they actually start digging in to the rest of it now as that tv clip is just the tip of a massive iceberg. Their denial reminds me of those Russians that were in another thread here recently flooding the forum with how great Stalin was and how everything that criticizes him is sheer propaganda. You can't make people listen if they plug their ears with their fists.

Imagine you were in nazi Germany and listened to all the anti jew, anti-everything propaganda and your jewish friends and neighbours, the critics, the gypsies, etc just disappear. As the years pass by you never see any jews anymore. Gee, wonder where they've all gone - on vacation? The nazi regime was incredibly brutal, also in the public streets. Kristallnacht anyone? I have seen documentaries on how the nazis initially used insane asylums to kill mentally handicapped and others. In the middle of small towns. In one case the local minister objected about what was obviously going on, and such objections were part of why they moved the operations out to concentration camps. But anyone with eyes in their head could see what was going on in nazi Germany.

First of all there was a rule to keep silence. Even those who were released out of KZs had to be absolutely silent. But indeed there were too many involved to keep all secret. Nevertheless it was a dictatorship that wanted to keep things hidden. So even the few that got out of this had to be at first belived and made popular. Also the SS who ruled these camps, were no Serbian soldateska and the other employees were under control of Gestapo. So it was much more difficultier to get infos than on the Balcan. Also a drunken man in a pub might not be the best source. As I said before the man had to spent one year in research to have the proof. He got infos first but the finaly proof he got not before over a year was over.
Also when the Allies lead the local population to the KZs many of them were really shocked not knowing what really was going on there (not all of couse). Another example is a South African woman who worked in several civil right councils. She admitted that she ever doubted on the shocks of Germans in these times being confrontated with the Holocaust. Until a few years. Although she was incorporated in the resistance against Apartheid she did not know some of the worst crimes.
Or Serbia. Until a few weeks most Serbians believed the "so called crimes" were only so called and only western propaganda. They really believed what was the Serbian propaganda said, even after Milosevic was captured. Until a movie in the TV was shown in which Serbian forces were shooting Bosnians. Filmed by Serbians. That was also a shock.
So don´t be too fast not to believe this.

Adler

Forget the propaganda. If you lived in nazi Germany things went on right before your eyes. Persecution of handicapped, critics, 'non-arians'. Extreme racism. Obvious violence. Police state everywhere. The disappearance of everyone not perfectly in line with nazi ideology.

There *were* underground anti-nazi movements in Germany. They were not blind to the nazi brutality. No one else should claim to have been mislead.


Now, undoubtly, there wasn't much misinformation in the WAllies propaganda - but, how should the average German recognize that? In WW1, the WAllies really exceeded the Germans and Russians here...

I've read the Berlin book by Anthony Beevor. While the actions of the red army were disgusting I can understand the reason for their actions. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.

Fine that explains the rape of German Women.
You can understand gang rape though?
What about all the forgein labourers that where released and raped, the jewish women raped, and the liberated soviet women.

It was not just pure revenge it was downright disgusting.

Fine that explains the rape of German Women.
You can understand gang rape though?
What about all the forgein labourers that where released and raped, the jewish women raped, and the liberated soviet women.

It was not just pure revenge it was downright disgusting.

I agree. I can't understand people who say they 'can understand' other people's monstrosities. Maybe they can find things that go some way of explaining why things happened as they did, but it doesn't in any way make them any less despicable. There is no excuse for rape. There is no excuse for slaughter of civilians.

Understanding is not the same as excusing, people.

I can partly understand, for example, why Soviet soldiers didn't particularly go out of their way to restain themselves once they entered Germany proper - their homeland and their countrymen, friends, and family had been utterly barbarised, pillaged, and exploited in the vilest possible terms for the last four years by one of the cruelest totalitarian regimes in the history of the world, with the ultimate ain of reducing them to a thinned-out slave existance. If you had gone through that, then you would likely have had your sympathy for the enemy's own population - probably even humanity in general - somewhat depleted as well. This is the context these men had lived through; some of the actions are, of course, more comprehensible than others.

Does this mean we find their actions when they entered Germany proper anything less than totally repelant and grossly hypocritical, and totally inexcusable? No, of course not.

Fine that explains the rape of German Women.
You can understand gang rape though?
What about all the forgein labourers that where released and raped, the jewish women raped, and the liberated soviet women.

It was not just pure revenge it was downright disgusting.

I agree it was disgusting but I wasn't there so I don't know the details. Alcohol, guns, soldiers and 4 years of death and debauchery is enough to strip away the humanity in the best of us I suspect. How would you react if your homeland was invaded, the population enslaved and exterminated, the women and children murdered and raped and when you liberate/occupy Poland you find the concentration camps. In any event you can blame this on the Nazis as well (invading Poland/USSR) and refusing to evacuate civilian areas.

Ironduck, propaganda is an excellent means to declare every brutality to be be right or even that it didn´t happen. Goebbels had nearly 10 years of preparation to build up a huge network of propaganda. The Gestapo was like the Stasi or NKWD everywhere. So infos about KZs were rare outside a certain circle (what I mean is around the death camps and in certain offices). It was declared the Jews were repatriated in the East. This was believed by many Germans since before the Wannsee conference there was a plan to give the Jews their own state on Madagaskar. But since this was impossible and because of the big areas conquered in the east for an average person in Germany this was much more believeable than Allied propaganda. He/ she knew the allied propaganda of ww1 and did not had the possibilities to get on infos very fast. Also IF you never heard about the Holocaust the possibility that this could happen was in the eyes of an average German of that time minimal. I mean even the allies didn´t believe in that totally although they were informed by the resistance groups in Poland and Germany.

Adler

Adler, you basically ignore my posts and talk about something else ;)

The common denominator in all these terror regimes with all their propaganda is that people who want to be led as sheep are led as sheep. The ones who want to look with their own eyes see the brutality clearly right there in front of them.

As soon as the allies came into Germany everyone who used to be proud nazis were all of a sudden completely innocent and had never been a nazi, and if they had it was all because they were forced. And they never heard about anything bad happening to anyone, it was always someone else doing the deeds. And the ones that were proven to have done the deeds (photographic evidence etc) only did it because they were forced to by their superiors. Who were forced by their superiors. Etc, etc.

I'm not saying that the average German knew there were extermination camps, in fact I'm quite sure most did not (not that I think it would have made a difference if they did). However, it was perfectly clear to any half-objective observer that it was an extremely racist, violent terror regime that were murdering citizens left and right without trial. And that jews and others were deported against their will after all their belongings had been taken from them.

Propaganda works because people want to believe it.

I think that is a phenomenom which is common to all humans. Did you read Kant´s essay about enlightment ("Was ist Aufklärung")? Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst gewählten Unmündigkeit (Enlightment is the exit of man out of his self chosen nonage). Self chosen because it is much easier not to reason. Nevertheless Hitler feared the day the Germans were enlighted what was going on in the camps really. For that day he knew he was only feared and his chances to stay the so called "Führer" were minimal. However nothing happened in this way. I think IF that was commonly known then there would have been a must within all the population to act. But not the pope nor the Allies did anything in this direction, only a single propaganda broadcast by BBC. Then there would have been a must to wake up the sleeping and force them with the ones who knew that to act. But another missed chance to end a catastrophy.

Adler

You always blame the Allies!

For letting Hitler start the war, for not letting the German people know about the death camps (even though it was punishable by death to listen to BBC broadcasts), for not teaming up with the half witted conspirators blah, blah, blah. You are a shocker!

Hitler never worried about his position as absolute dictator. The reason for that was Goring and Himmler kept the population in its place. And also I believe coz the majority of the population didn't really care about the Jews anyway. The deportations, persecutions etc were going on since 1933!

Is this effort of yours to try and alleviate the German people of war guilt one you've thought up yourself? Or is it what they teach the German kids in school?

You always blame the Allies!

For letting Hitler start the war, for not letting the German people know about the death camps (even though it was punishable by death to listen to BBC broadcasts), for not teaming up with the half witted conspirators blah, blah, blah. You are a shocker!

Hitler never worried about his position as absolute dictator. The reason for that was Goring and Himmler kept the population in its place. And also I believe coz the majority of the population didn't really care about the Jews anyway. The deportations, persecutions etc were going on since 1933!

Is this effort of yours to try and alleviate the German people of war guilt one you've thought up yourself? Or is it what they teach the German kids in school?

I think Adler is in the position of wanting Germany to win the war. A non Nazi Germany. Even now its hard to say how much knowledge the Germans had of the holocaust. Personally I don't think the modern German should have any war guilt. They weren't there at the time and IMHO Germany payed for its sins (real and imagined) with the destruction of their cities, 2 million women raped, loss of territory and partition (something they haven't recovered from yet). From what I can make out around 30% of the population supported Hitler the rest more or less went along with it. The average German seemed to know something was happening but I doubt they realised the full extent of the Holocaust.

I don't think the modern German should have any war guilt.

My thought exactly, Germany and the German people have apologized for the Holocaust and the war a billion times already. The German people (And everyone else) should just move on and not continue to dwell on the matter. Since the modern German nation and it's people are not responsible for what the Nazis did.

First off, this is not about today's German people being guilty of anything, that is absurd. I am only discussing how the majority of people time and again through history turn the blind eye and pretend that they don't know about the terrors that are happening in their back yard. Adler brought up Serbia which is a very good example of denial.

I like Kant, but I disagree with your conclusion that the German people would have chosen enlightment 'if only they had known this or that'. The Germans actively supported Hitler and his henchmen. They watched in the streets as the brown shirts smashed and defaced Jewish buildings and mosques. You really need to consider just how extreme the nazis were - have you ever seen a video of Hitler's speeches? People couldn't get enough of this madman. He was not talking about peace and harmony, you know. He was talking about the superiority of the Arian race. About the inferiority of the everyone else. Supporting someone who says that and later claiming ignorance just doesn't fly.

Oh, and yes, the Catholic church were terrible as well, but that's another discussion.

I think that is a phenomenom which is common to all humans. Did you read Kant´s essay about enlightment ("Was ist Aufklärung")? Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst gewählten Unmündigkeit (Enlightment is the exit of man out of his self chosen nonage). Self chosen because it is much easier not to reason. Nevertheless Hitler feared the day the Germans were enlighted what was going on in the camps really. For that day he knew he was only feared and his chances to stay the so called "Führer" were minimal. However nothing happened in this way. I think IF that was commonly known then there would have been a must within all the population to act. But not the pope nor the Allies did anything in this direction, only a single propaganda broadcast by BBC. Then there would have been a must to wake up the sleeping and force them with the ones who knew that to act. But another missed chance to end a catastrophy.

Adler

rilnator, I only blame the Allies as they missed several chances to stop the Holocaust. IF you accept that also the allies made horrible mistakes and were not the "white knights fighting the evil" you could see what I mean.
Also I am glad that Hitler lost the war. However I am not glad with the situation afterwards since there was still such a pig like Hitler somewhere else.
Ironduck, the Germans were in a crise when many elected Hitler, however he never got the majority in the Reichstag! The Germans thought with an upgoing of economy and the regaining of strenghth the bad things Hitler did were either the fault of the SA and other lower party members but not Hitler´s who was not aware on that (this is not my opinion!!!) or thought these bad things were bad but just tollerable. Hitler was at his peak after the victory in France and if he died then he would now be celebrated as a kind of German Napoleon. His errors would be seen as errors but nobody´s perfect (also not my opinion).
Otherwise if they knew the extent Hitler knew he could not be sure to stay the so called Führer. I think that would have been too much. As long as the population did not know that he was able to stay. Also remember the case when the Germans got to know about the eugenic ceanings of mentally disabled persons. The uproar was so big that Hitler was forced to stop this (in the public; secretly it was done). What would have happened if the Germans got to know what was going on...
An absolute dictator must give the people the illusion he had the absolute power. But at a certain degree the population will find out he hasn´t this power. And then nothing can save him.

Adler

I am only discussing how the majority of people time and again through history turn the blind eye and pretend that they don't know about the terrors that are happening in their back yard.
You make one big mistake in your argumentation; the analogy with Serbia is a questionable one: You may not assume modern information levels. The majority didn't know much of anything. And they were so used to it, they didn't even wonder about their lack of information.
I am indeed pretty critical about "The Germans" in the 3rd Reich, and unlike many, I did recherche what my own relatives did in that time.
My paternal grandparents were really simple people. They spent their entire live in a small protestant Francionian village (exactly those region where the NSDA had the most support).
My Grandfather was a very proud SA member. He married in the SA uniform (since of course, that were his best clothings anyway). At the same time, Grandma worked as housemaid for a Jewish family. After the Reichskristallnacht, my grandafather repaired the windows of the Jweish houses his SA buddies had thrown in.
That was neither a smart business nor an heroic act - he just though it would be a perfectly normal job. The local Nazi heads of course were pretty upset about him; a correct German wasn't supposed to work for the Jews.
The family grandma worked for luckily made it into the US in 1940; the remaining Jews in that village were deported in 1941.
Of course, Grandma was convinced it would be for the better(!) - ever heard of the Theresienstadt-Propaganda? "Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt" (Führer donates the Jews a city)?
Lots of the more simple minded at that time thought like my Grandma: With all those daily prosecution, it is better for them if they move somewhere those brutes leave them alone...
You must consider the general information level at that time:
The press - Nazi only. Radio? BBC, in a village where everone controlls his neighbor? Besides, they couldn't afford a radio anyway...
The local VIPs were all dedicated Nazis (including the church, of course). And there were no work camps anywhere near (lack of industry); still, the foreign agriculture workers were there.
In 1946, when the evidence was clear, Grandma had a nervous breakdown and spent a year in hospital. The fact "her" Jewish family seeked contact with her in 1950 already tells enough about her personal integrity.
Wife of a SA (and later SS) member, Mutterkreuzträgerin, always voted for the NSDAP (since Grandpa told her) - and still, this has to say nothing about personal guilt.
Now, if you ask about my other Grandparents...both working in the local Wehrmacht administration. They for sure knew a lot, if not all. But, they belonged to a minority.
The majority of ordinary people were misinformed in such a way they did not notice any discrepancies. If we blame them from a today moral highground, it's completely unjustified - we never know how we'd act in such a situation. It ain't that easy.

That said, anyone denying the holocaust after '46 is a headcase. No, absolutely no excuses here. Same as the Serbian or Stalinist atrocities.

[QUOTE=Doc Tsiolkovski]Of course, Grandma was convinced it would be for the better(!) - ever heard of the Theresienstadt-Propaganda? "Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt" (Führer donates the Jews a city)?

That was the "nice" concentration camp used for propaganda purposes where the Red Cross could visit etc?

Also remember the case when the Germans got to know about the eugenic ceanings of mentally disabled persons. The uproar was so big that Hitler was forced to stop this (in the public; secretly it was done). What would have happened if the Germans got to know what was going on...
Adler

Well, it seems to me the majority of the Germans cared less about the Jews than anyone, certainly less than the mentally handicapped. The propaganda films that were clearly sanctioned by the regime clearly showed to everyone what the Jews were supposed to be treated like. And how many objected to that?

Also, I am aware that the nazis never reached the majority of votes, it was still a healthy chunk. Further, as you say, Hitler was seen by many as a hero as he consolidated his power and the invasion of western Europe was quite the pinnacle in those people's eyes. We will never know how many exactly supported him, but it seems to me that while the nazis were crushing all resistance the admirers were everywhere. Not only in Germany, but also in populations in other countries that were in awe of this illusion of power.

Edit: X-post

The Germans cared for the mentally impaired? Nonsense. The protests arose when the Nazis went overboard, and touched the numberous WW1 victims (those who lost their mental sanity because of the war). And some more who had been part of society before.
The born impaired or genically defect didn't concern the Germans. But lets be fair, no other country really cared in that time at all ("Freaks", someone?).


Theresienstadt:

Yes, Red Cross visited it later (in '44), and at that time the infamous movie was made as well. Btw, the only reason why the Rde Cross was interested at all were the complaints of the Danish Government under Nazi occupation; none of the 'free' countries had ever demanded the RC to intervene...
The bluff most have been convincing - the RC did no longer insist on visiting Auschwitz.

But Theresienstadt was always used for propaganda; Jewish VIPs, Iron Cross WW1 veterans etc were brought to it (some rich ones even bought a place there).
Note the KZ, while no death camp, was far from being a nice place. It was nominally admistrated by a Jewish Comitee; thus, they tried to care for everyone as good as possible with some success.
OTOH, the city and garrison before had like 7000 inhabitants - the KZ had about 50000 imprisoned.
A total of 141 000 persons have been in Theresienstadt; 33 500 died there, 88 000 were further deported into death camps.

http://www.cine-holocaust.de/cgi-bin/gdq?efw00fbw000812.gd

Doc, not sure which direction you're critical of? The acceptance of Hitler by most Germans, or that presumed 'innocence' of the Germans?

Your story is interesting either way, thanks for taking the time to write it. I *do* have a major issue with the simplemindedness you write about though. I simply cannot accept when people try to rationalize such things. I understand that the information was scarce, but who were 'the brutes'? They were SA uniforms! The SA worked for the nazis, how could anyone not know that, even if they were very uninformed? The propaganda films that told people that Jews were evil were sanctioned by the nazi regime, how could anyone not know that? When Hitler in his speeches told everyone the arians were superiour and Jews were dog****, how could it not be plain as day what Hitler and his henchmen thought of the Jews? I can't see how 'those brutes' can somehow be removed from the nsdap, even in the simplest of minds.

The moral highground you speak of, what is that? Should it never be allowed to look back and see that people made mistakes in the past? Is everything 'ok' because we can never know exactly what things were like if we weren't there? I will never agree to that. It was NOT ok. I think that to learn from history we must see both the good and bad decisions people make, and not say that we can never judge anyone's demeanor in the past because we didn't live it. I believe that learning from the past is one way not to make similar mistakes in the future.

And I think people who lived in nazi germany and didn't fight it made a mistake.

You make one big mistake in your argumentation; the analogy with Serbia is a questionable one: You may not assume modern information levels. The majority didn't know much of anything. And they were so used to it, they didn't even wonder about their lack of information.
I am indeed pretty critical about "The Germans" in the 3rd Reich, and unlike many, I did recherche what my own relatives did in that time.
My paternal grandparents were really simple people. They spent their entire live in a small protestant Francionian village (exactly those region where the NSDA had the most support).
My Grandfather was a very proud SA member. He married in the SA uniform (since of course, that were his best clothings anyway). At the same time, Grandma worked as housemaid for a Jewish family. After the Reichskristallnacht, my grandafather repaired the windows of the Jweish houses his SA buddies had thrown in.
That was neither a smart business nor an heroic act - he just though it would be a perfectly normal job. The local Nazi heads of course were pretty upset about him; a correct German wasn't supposed to work for the Jews.
The family grandma worked for luckily made it into the US in 1940; the remaining Jews in that village were deported in 1941.
Of course, Grandma was convinced it would be for the better(!) - ever heard of the Theresienstadt-Propaganda? "Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt" (Führer donates the Jews a city)?
Lots of the more simple minded at that time thought like my Grandma: With all those daily prosecution, it is better for them if they move somewhere those brutes leave them alone...
You must consider the general information level at that time:
The press - Nazi only. Radio? BBC, in a village where everone controlls his neighbor? Besides, they couldn't afford a radio anyway...
The local VIPs were all dedicated Nazis (including the church, of course). And there were no work camps anywhere near (lack of industry); still, the foreign agriculture workers were there.
In 1946, when the evidence was clear, Grandma had a nervous breakdown and spent a year in hospital. The fact "her" Jewish family seeked contact with her in 1950 already tells enough about her personal integrity.
Wife of a SA (and later SS) member, Mutterkreuzträgerin, always voted for the NSDAP (since Grandpa told her) - and still, this has to say nothing about personal guilt.
Now, if you ask about my other Grandparents...both working in the local Wehrmacht administration. They for sure knew a lot, if not all. But, they belonged to a minority.
The majority of ordinary people were misinformed in such a way they did not notice any discrepancies. If we blame them from a today moral highground, it's completely unjustified - we never know how we'd act in such a situation. It ain't that easy.

That said, anyone denying the holocaust after '46 is a headcase. No, absolutely no excuses here. Same as the Serbian or Stalinist atrocities.

I'm critical of that myth of the 80 million resistance fighters + a few Nazi criminals.

Those 'brutes'? You are aware that in the 1930, Boxing was the most important sport? That the reocurring fights against the next smalltown were the highlight of any weekend? That the Communists and Nazis until 1930 by no means differed in their use of violence (the difference was that the Left was prosecuted by the Police...)?
I think you have no clue how violent the daily live before WW2 (or maybe even the Flower Power era ;) ) was.
And you forget that in that time, 'Democracy' wasn't something of value. Fascist Italy obviously fared better than Democratic Germany in the the Weimar Era. "Republics" - any idea how many republics were left in Europe at eve of WW2? France, Czechoslovakia and Ireland. Oh, and Switzerland - but hey, they didn't even have univerals suffrage...
Yes, there were several more Constitutional Monarchies - but that exactly was what most Germans wanted after WW1 as well. But, Versailles...
It is fully justified to blame large parts of society to sabotage the Weimar Republic.

And I think people who lived in nazi germany and didn't fight it made a mistake.
Fighting the Nazis? It was already futile to fight the repressive Kaiserreich. I personally fail to see how someone could not try to emigrate. But I do not blame anyone for not being suicidial.

France, Czechoslovakia and Ireland. Yes, there were several more Constitutional Monarchies

Finland too, the Fascist coup there failed in the early 30's as the local Fascist party (Lapuan Liike = Lapua Movement) of Finland attempted a sort of March to Rome kind of coup that Mussolini had pulled off in 1922. ;)

Plus at the eve of ww2 Chechoslovakia was taken over by Germany, the Munich deal.

Finnland? Wasn't it technically a military dictatorship of Mannerheim by choice (no doubt, they could have reverted)?
CZ, yes, of course. But, as long as it was around, it was the sole democratic country in all of E/SE Europe.

Finnland?

That's the German spelling, but i'm a part German so i'm guilty of that sometimes aswell. (Spelling it wrong)

Wasn't it technically a military dictatorship of Mannerheim by choice

Mannerheim was not in any political power until 47-48 when he was president, but we were a heathy democrasy and we still are. Were did you read othervise? ;)

And no we were never taken over by the Soviet Union if anybody here ever thought that. ;)

Doc, I have no idea what you are trying to say. It seems partly you agree with me by being 'critical of the myth of 80 million resistance fighters vs a few nazis' - which is *exactly* what I've said. Germany was infested with nazis. And most other just stood by.

Then you give me a lesson on how violent Germany was in the 30s and tell me I have no idea. Apparently you do, and I don't? How in the world do you know what I have researched? I'm quite aware of the tumultous years of pre-nazi Germany, thank you very much. My references were to your story about people thinking that somehow it would be 'better' for the Jews to be 'moved' because of the 'brutes'. But in your own example they voted for the nsdap. And Hitler did not hide his hatred to the Jews. I cannot see how anyone could *not* see that the the nazis were treating the Jews (and others) like they were sub-human.

And as for fighting the nazis, there were many ways - not voting for them for instance! And speaking out openly against them. Some people did do that, but they were few and far between, as you well know, and yes, they were murdered when the nazis came into power. But these things happen when most people just stand by. If everyone is passive one person can murder as many as he likes.

Even in the chaotic Germany pre-1933 there were moderate parties and moderate voices. It wasn't just a choice between communism and fascism, but that was what it ended with.

Also, the 'constitutional monarchies' you talk about also included the Scandianvian countries which were fully democratic and not monarchies in anything but a symbolic sense.

I'm critical of that myth of the 80 million resistance fighters + a few Nazi criminals.

Those 'brutes'? You are aware that in the 1930, Boxing was the most important sport? That the reocurring fights against the next smalltown were the highlight of any weekend? That the Communists and Nazis until 1930 by no means differed in their use of violence (the difference was that the Left was prosecuted by the Police...)?
I think you have no clue how violent the daily live before WW2 (or maybe even the Flower Power era ;) ) was.
And you forget that in that time, 'Democracy' wasn't something of value. Fascist Italy obviously fared better than Democratic Germany in the the Weimar Era. "Republics" - any idea how many republics were left in Europe at eve of WW2? France, Czechoslovakia and Ireland. Oh, and Switzerland - but hey, they didn't even have univerals suffrage...
Yes, there were several more Constitutional Monarchies - but that exactly was what most Germans wanted after WW1 as well. But, Versailles...
It is fully justified to blame large parts of society to sabotage the Weimar Republic.


Fighting the Nazis? It was already futile to fight the repressive Kaiserreich. I personally fail to see how someone could not try to emigrate. But I do not blame anyone for not being suicidial.

I'm quite aware of the tumultous years of pre-nazi Germany
That is not what I mean. I *think* you underestimate how much more violence was a daily occurance (and "fun") in that times. In the rural areas in pretty much all countries, the Jews weren't treated much harsher than the Roma, Socialisists, Irish, or the folks from the rival villages always were. The 'Good old times' were not that great at all...

the 'constitutional monarchies' you talk about also included the Scandianvian countries
Yes, and of course the Benelux countries and GB. Fully democratic all. But it was the 'Republic' that was the symbol for WW1 defeat. The very same parlamentary system, with a symbolical, adored Monarch (whoever that would have been; Wili2 may not have made the best choice) would have gotten support from the military or industry leaders instead.

The Weimar party system had some deficiencies also, like the lack of a Conservative Party except the dedicated Catholic Zentrum/ Bavarian Party. That one was clearly democratic - but, there was no alternative for Protestants. That of course is no excuse for voting extremist, but it shouldn't surprise that the NSDAP got a lot support from right-wing (not necessarily extremist) Protestants early on.

But the point is that there *were* democracies around Europe that were doing well, it was clearly a feasible model - whether they were called constitutional monarchies or whatever (they are still called that, but it's just an official title, they are fully-fledged democracies). People in these countries did not 'adore' their monarch, they were democrats (some were extreme right and left of course, but they were in the clear minority). It is my impression that the industry and the millitary in Germany wanted a 'strong man' in charge, but they would not have gotten that with a constitional monarchy like any of the ones in the countries around them since they weren't about that at all.

And as for the violence - I don't see how it somehow excuses advocating it? When the nazis say 'let's destroy the commies and the jews' then I can't see it as being defensible to vote for the nazis. Likewise, when the communists say 'let's destroy the fascists and the bourgoise' how would anyone want to defend them?

I do agree with the sentiment of fleeing Germany after 1933 if one did not want to join the underground fight.

Anyway, I'm not sure where we are disagreeing, maybe it's a communications issue.

That is not what I mean. I *think* you underestimate how much more violence was a daily occurance (and "fun") in that times. In the rural areas in pretty much all countries, the Jews weren't treated much harsher than the Roma, Socialisists, Irish, or the folks from the rival villages always were. The 'Good old times' were not that great at all...

Yes, and of course the Benelux countries and GB. Fully democratic all. But it was the 'Republic' that was the symbol for WW1 defeat. The very same parlamentary system, with a symbolical, adored Monarch (whoever that would have been; Wili2 may not have made the best choice) would have gotten support from the military or industry leaders instead.

The Weimar party system had some deficiencies also, like the lack of a Conservative Party except the dedicated Catholic Zentrum/ Bavarian Party. That one was clearly democratic - but, there was no alternative for Protestants. That of course is no excuse for voting extremist, but it shouldn't surprise that the NSDAP got a lot support from right-wing (not necessarily extremist) Protestants early on.

It was a different world back then. In the 80's people feared the Soviet Union. In the 30's they were positively terrified as in 32 Stalin was starving the Ukraine. Also racism was quite commen in all countries I suspect. Example my grandmother didn't like asians or blacks/maoris. In those days it was quite acceptable in most of the world to beat your kids or wife and the police didn't care to much if you went up to someone and punched them because you had a bad day at work.

The Nazis believed no one would care about the Jews- after all no one really cared about the blacks in the USA. Also people believed the Nazis would improve once they came to power. In Germany before the Nazis people were beaten to death for their political views. The Left/Right split was very violent not just in Europe. The average person believes that Communism had to be stopped whatever the cost as they had a decent idea of what was happening in the USA.

This partly explains why Facism was popular as persecuting Jews was only one aspect of it (just about limited to Germany as well). Mussolini for example didn't allow Jewish deportations from Italy until he was a puppet and had no choice. Others admired the nationalistic aspects of Facism. Most foregin volunteers for the SS weren't there for Germany or to participate in the Holocaust. They were there because they hated Communism and were williong to fight.

One thing I'm not to sure of though. One of the Holocausts stories was that the Germans made soap out of human fat. It turned out to be not true but the rumor started amoung the Jewish survivors who were taunted on the way to the death camps. Basically people would yell this out to them in the trains so they must have known something????

One thing I'm not to sure of though. One of the Holocausts stories was that the Germans made soap out of human fat. It turned out to be not true but the rumor started amoung the Jewish survivors who were taunted on the way to the death camps. Basically people would yell this out to them in the trains so they must have known something????

Here is an article that discusses the soap allegations: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap01.html

Here is an article that discusses the soap allegations: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap01.html

Already in my favourites and read already:)

My Great grandfather (the father of my mother´s mother) was an official in the social office of Hamburg. Like his father, a Prussian officer (!), he was in the SPD. He hated the Nazis. He was one of the minority who knew what was going on in the KZs. And he was one of the even bigger minority who acted against that. In the nights he helped to evacuate Jews out of Hamburg. Also he heard BBC and a neighbour of him, a strong Nazi, wanted to blame him. Only because the wifes were so close firends he did not that. Very late in the war my greatgrandfather was forced to join the NSDAP, what he ever avoided before. What the reasons were I don´t know. This is all I know about him in this phase of history since he seldomly spoke to my grandma from this time and in the war ever hide the secrets. He died about 1960. I asked my grandma what did she know, but since she was a teenager she didn´t know much. Her one year older brother served in the Navy in the war and also did not know anything.
Most Germans didn´t know what was going on like also Doc posted here. I only wanted to post that story.

Adler

My Great grandfather (the father of my mother´s mother) was an official in the social office of Hamburg. Like his father, a Prussian officer (!), he was in the SPD. He hated the Nazis. He was one of the minority who knew what was going on in the KZs. And he was one of the even bigger minority who acted against that. In the nights he helped to evacuate Jews out of Hamburg. Also he heard BBC and a neighbour of him, a strong Nazi, wanted to blame him. Only because the wifes were so close firends he did not that. Very late in the war my greatgrandfather was forced to join the NSDAP, what he ever avoided before. What the reasons were I don´t know. This is all I know about him in this phase of history since he seldomly spoke to my grandma from this time and in the war ever hide the secrets. He died about 1960. I asked my grandma what did she know, but since she was a teenager she didn´t know much. Her one year older brother served in the Navy in the war and also did not know anything.
Most Germans didn´t know what was going on like also Doc posted here. I only wanted to post that story.

Adler


I have read some joined the NSDAP late in the war to show loyalty/provide a cover story while they continued their anti NSDAP activities.

I have read some joined the NSDAP late in the war to show loyalty/provide a cover story while they continued their anti NSDAP activities.

Yes, I would think that to be very plausible. In fact, working their way up the party ranks can provide privileges that make it easier to continue the resistance. If one is to smuggle people out of Germany it helps having access to otherwise restricted areas and to present oneself as a party official.

rilnator, I only blame the Allies as they missed several chances to stop the Holocaust.
Adler

Thats like blaming an barman for serving an alcoholic.

Who was in the best position to stop the Holocaust? The same people who implemented it- The Germans.

I'm just waiting for you to blame the Jews themselves, for not getting out of Hitler's way.

As far as i know my Great Grand Father was not very keen about that and was in some way forced to do so. It could be possible he wanted to hide his "smuggles" but I have doubts.

rilnator, the barman must see if someone is an alcoholic and he is in certain circumstances not allowed to give him alcohol. However I only wanted to say that whenever the Germans asked for help by the allies the help they got were ridiculous minimal. And that I do critizise.

Adler

As far as i know my Great Grand Father was not very keen about that and was in some way forced to do so. It could be possible he wanted to hide his "smuggles" but I have doubts.

rilnator, the barman must see if someone is an alcoholic and he is in certain circumstances not allowed to give him alcohol. However I only wanted to say that whenever the Germans asked for help by the allies the help they got were ridiculous minimal. And that I do critizise.

Adler

From the Allies point of view keeping Hitler in power was a good thing. They could read most of the German signals and communications. Wasn't to hard for them to figure out who came up with some of the disastrous tactics the Germans carried out. If Hitler was removed theres no gurantee any nazi/military government would accept unconditional surrender. Even Himmler could have prolonged the war if he took over in 43-44 from Hitler- he was more pragmatic and would have listened to advice from the generals.

he was more pragmatic and would have listened to advice from the generals.

That's very hard to believe, since Himmler was one of those idiots in Berlin who were convinced that the Red Army would not attack in January 1945 across the river Wistula (sp?).

That's very hard to believe, since Himmler was one of those idiots in Berlin who were convinced that the Red Army would not attack in January 1945 across the river Wistula (sp?).

Himmler was an idiot and political hack. He was also trying to get out of the war. In some ways he was smarter than Hitler and was alot easier to influence.

Don't know if the generals would have liked taking orders from Heini though.

Although some of the earlier conspirators thought that when they killed Hitler they would replace him with Goring.

The conspiracy of the 20th July was a conglomerate of persons belonging to different political directions. So there was a possible president Goerdeler from the conservatives (DNVP) and a possible chancellor from the SPD, Julius Leber. However they agreed to certain key decisions: Germany should become a new democratic constitution and to make peace with the (western) allies. There are not many serious doubts that they would have also made peace with the Soviets. Also the question of an unconditional surrender would have changed perhaps if Adolf was dead.
IF the Allies didn´t help the German resistance because only of having the possibility to make an unconditional surrender certain, and let millions of humans die only because of this, they have a pretty big part of responsability for the dead. But this only underlines my thesis: There were no good leaders in the main powers of that time only evil. Only some (Hitler, Stalin) were worse than others (Churchill, Roosevelt/ Truman).

Adler

How on earth did you work out that Churchill was evil?

How on earth did you work out that Churchill was evil?

Although this is not related to the hypothetical thesis of an overthrow of the German regime, it's worth noting that Churchill was in favour of the terrible firebombing of the civilians in Germany, that most likely did little to change the length of the war.

In wars, there are rarely genuinely good guys. Wars is about killing the opposition, some just seem to take further steps than that.

Churchhill also has a not so great record from WW1...

As well as being a bit gas-happy

Just because he was incompetent in his postion as First Lord of the Admiralty does not make him evil. Secondly the fire bombing of civilans meh it was total war, wanting to save your own people from a racist bigot is nowhere near evil.

Thirdly his record as a liberal minister cant be called evil anyway he was instrumental along with Lloyd George and other characters such as Haldane and Hobhouse in laying the foundations of the Welfare State.

Secondly the fire bombing of civilans meh it was total war, wanting to save your own people from a racist bigot is nowhere near evil.

Perhaps you should read up on this particular part of history. There was little millitary reason for the firebombing of civilians, it was simply meant to terrorize them into submission and thereby putting pressure on the regime to end the war. But everyone knew that it was a total dictatorship in full war mode and that civilian lives were not any concern of the nazis.

So murdering the German civilians - including children - did nothing to save the lives of the allies. It is one thing to wipe out anyone that points a gun at you, it is different altogether to target civilians to terrorize them. That is no better than the atrocities of the German and Soviet soldiers on the front lines with their murdering and raping of civilians.

Perhaps you should read up on this particular part of history. There was little millitary reason for the firebombing of civilians, it was simply meant to terrorize them into submission and thereby putting pressure on the regime to end the war. But everyone knew that it was a total dictatorship in full war mode and that civilian lives were not any concern of the nazis.

So murdering the German civilians - including children - did nothing to save the lives of the allies. It is one thing to wipe out anyone that points a gun at you, it is different altogether to target civilians to terrorize them. That is no better than the atrocities of the German and Soviet soldiers on the front lines with their murdering and raping of civilians.

Don't bring this up again. I've been thinking over Adlers and Co's arguements and are softening my position on Allied carpet bombing. Its was a crap thing to do but compared to the German crimes pales IMHO. Its intention was to force the Germans to surrender. The Holocaust and occupation of Europe was pure evil- the goals being the extinction and subjugation of the populations. From that point of view its better than your description of it.

Zardnaar, I only say I disagree partly at least. If someone is interested in that discussion he should read the ones about Dresden and (terror) bombing war.

Adler

What they don't tell you about Churchill is he was more than happy to drop poison gaas over Germany (as well as Africa).

Don't bring this up again. I've been thinking over Adlers and Co's arguements and are softening my position on Allied carpet bombing. Its was a crap thing to do but compared to the German crimes pales IMHO. Its intention was to force the Germans to surrender. The Holocaust and occupation of Europe was pure evil- the goals being the extinction and subjugation of the populations. From that point of view its better than your description of it.

What are you talking about? I'm not comparing the holocaust with the allied fire bombing. What I said was that as far as warfare was concerned, there was little millitary reason for it - that has been acknowledged all over the place after the war. You need to distinguish millitary bombing that makes sense from a millitary perspective - infrastructure, convoys, heavy industry - with mindless terror bombing of civilians that only serves to cause civilian pain but doesn't shorten the duration of the war. Likewise, when the German and Soviet army tore up the countries they waded through, you can distinguish between attacking enemy forces and randomly attacking the civilian population. And that was what my comparison was about. Do keep the holocaust out of this specific discussion - in no place will you find me excusing the nazi regime, feel free to go through my posts.

Subjective morality is aload of bullocks. They bomed us we bombed them back. It was the only way of striking back in Europe for the British and Allied forces.

To try and lower the morale of a civilian population is now a days a legitamte war aim. And as you said yourself the lack of military purpose was only acknowledged AFTER the war.

Total war calls for total measures does that mean that a man trying to defend democracy against invasion is evil?

I don't know what is going on in your head, and I probably don't want to know either.

Hitler used the expression of total war and total measures, it appears you agree with him.

And it was indeed being pointed out during the war that the terror bombing of the civilian population likely had very little millitary effect.

Also Goebbels, when declaring total war (when is a war not total???) "only" wanted to say that Germany is now full mobilizing. Until then Germany had a war economy under the possibilities in a strange mixture of peace and war economy. That was changed shortly after. Propaganda is working still about this speech. Nevertheless the basic rules of war have to be kept in all kinds of war, from an only air lead war like in Kosovo to a world war. Since I don´t want to start a new discussion on that topic we should stop here.

Adler

Also Goebbels, when declaring total war (when is a war not total???) "only" wanted to say that Germany is now full mobilizing.

But to be fair the Germans were bombing civilians, the U-Boats were operating unrestricted warfare for much of the war, and the Nazis were attacking civilians in various ways, therefore they were conducting their very own Total war, even if Goebbels wasn't referring to it at the time.

Which is not me saying that one justifies the other, but saying that it's nonsense to imply that the Germans weren't doing exactly the same kind of things as the allies were doing. They just usually operated on a smaller scale by necesssity.

PH, it is debateable if unrestricted Uboat warfare is a war crime. But that´s also another topic for another thread.

Adler

Lets not bring up bombing again.

PH, it is debateable if unrestricted Uboat warfare is a war crime. But that´s also another topic for another thread.

Adler

Of course the willful attack of civilian ships with civilians on board is a crime.

Of course the willful attack of civilian ships with civilians on board is a crime.
It's debatab