Haven't been reading that thread for few days.. so I'll refer to few opinions:

Adler: I don't think that your "legal" approach if valid. It's very strange for me - I hear about those doubts for the first time in my life.
SomethingWicked: you're the one I was waiting for! A normal German. I know that Adler's point of view is not popular in Germany, I was only worried that there was no support against his claims from your side of Odra (Oder river).

For the WW2 expulsions of Germans - as I wrote before before war my mother lived on Polish side, but there was some Germans living in their vicinity. She told me that they were all expelled and (as she was born in 1942, so she doesn't remember it very well - maybe my grandmother told her) that people took all Germans had - not only houses. She remembered that they took their cow - it was a very sad view for my ancestors, who lived with them for many years.
I must add that their fate was horrible - even Poles were treated badly by Red Army, but Germans were treated much worse - rapes and stealing was normal then.
At the end I have to add that those soldiers saw just weeks before German Death Camps, so it is possible to me to understand why it was happening. However I wouldn't do so to civilians...

@ aelf, what would happen if Condi is killed in Sadr City by an Iranian agent with traces to Ahmedinedshad (sp?)? That is a much better example!

That analogy doesn't work either., unless you say "shot by an Iranian" and "blame and attack the current Iranian government" or something similar, for all of the reasons that that would need to apply.

Well, would other countries (except maybe Britain) endorse a US invasion on Iran based on that reason? But would Condi Rice even take such a risk? And she is only National Security Advisor. The Archduke was the heir to the throne in a large monarchy. I know he probably had good intentions, but if there ever was foolishness, this is one big instance of it.

Anyway, ultimately, how much does it really matter to the argument at hand? You can even say that the Archduke died purely by chance (the plot actually failed, what followed was a fluke). I was only trying to point out that Austria did not have a strong case to begin with, as the Archduke could have lived if he didn't make the wrong decision himself. In fact, after it happened, Austria was unsure of what to do. Only after the encouragement of Germany did it act like it did, so Germany definitely shared a big part of the blame for starting the war (my main point). Well, AFAIK, the Germans probably miscalculated and thought that Russia or at least France would back down and not fulfill their proclaimed obligations. Still, I'm certain enough to say that the arrogance of authoritarian empires (one of which was Germany), on top of previous tension due to German belligerence (eg. the Morroccan Crises) and the arms race, led to the war.

(Yes positive part of communism was progress in feminism)


Have you some examples?




Lol no I wasn't talking about examples in this forum I was just saying that the word Propoganda has been used many times in this thread so I got sick of seeing it >_<
Opps :(((((:cry:

PH: The German resistance had to be accepted by most parts of the population. That's why it was important to have nearly all "in the boat". That they all had different ideas was only logic, but also neccessary if you want to rebuild a nation. In a few points however they were totally agreeing: Removing the Nazis, stopping the Holocaust and the war, reenforcing the constitution and reforming it. In any case, except the KPD, a democracy should be reinstalled. IMO that were the most important and most urgent targets to achieve.

I'm sorry Adler but what you say simply doesn't match up with what I've read, unless that is you're talking about a very select time period of around the July plot.

Why for example would the conspirators all agree to remove the Nazis if they approached Himmler to suggest he displace Hitler? Does it not seem strange that a group comitted to ending the holocaust and removing the Nazis would contemplate working with a prominent Nazi who commanded the very instrument of the holocaust - the SS - let alone put him in power? They must have been serious about the offer, after all as conspriators they were risking everything by going to Himmler who could so easily have had them rounded up.

I doubt the allies knew of the approach but this was exactly what they feared. They had no interest in Hitler being replaced by another Nazi, or by a government that would not bring prominent Nazis to trial.

You say they planned to end the war but from what I've read until just before the July plot they only planned to end the war in the West and continue fighting in the east. It was only after D-Day and in the weeks approaching Stauffenberg's attempt that the conspirators accepted that unconditional surrender was the only way forward. This earlier theory that the west would accept conditional or seperate surrender was naive and in contradiction to the Allies plainly stated aims at Casablanca.

To me saying this splintering was causing no help is just a (bad) excuse.

Its not an excuse, its the realisation that without clarity or a coherent message that was suitable to the Allies stated aims they had little reason to listen.

Well despite the missing support Hilter avoided his own end twice luckily only little later, just before Charkow. General Hyazinth Graf von Strachwitz awaited Hitler to imrpison him (or to shoot him in the case of resistance, what was much more realistic). But Hitler did fly to manstein and not to his location. So Adam von Trott zu Stolz smuggled a bomb within Congac bottle on board of his plane. But because of the low temperatures the bomb did not detonate!

I'm not saying attempts weren't made on his life, just that the lack of unified and active opposition in both the army and elsewhere lead to the Allies being suspicious of the motivations of the plotters.

Churchill wanted Hitler to sit on the Electric Chair and then had scruples because of his assassinating?!?

I was talking about early assasination attempts or plots, i.e. 1938-39 and Churchill was not in power then. Rightly or wrongly German "militarism" was seen as being a major threat to peace in Europe by the western powers. Chamberlin would never back the assasination of Hitler by a group of Prussian army officers, or a coup by the same. It wouldn't have mattered that power would have been transferred to a democracy. The perception the west would probably have formed was that the democracy held power at the whim of the army.

Although this was also debated in the German resistance it was clear that it was impossible to imprison Hitler and then taking over the power. That would only be possible if he was sent to a prison he could never escape or liberated, but in any case it was better to have him dead

When you say the resistance whom do you speak of? Stauffenberg for example and many other officers had serious problems with assasination due to their Christian upbringing. It took Stauffenberg time (until after Stalingrad to be exact) to persuade himself that to let Hitler live was a bigger crime. That's men like Stauffenberg and Treskow of course, Beevor mentions that many of the older officers still held on to the idea that they could persuade Hitler to step down as Commander in Chief of the army and thus be removed from power later without too much chaos and mutiny by the army. It's such a shame that they totally misread Hitler's personality in that way.

Also Stalin was betraying the Allies, too. Churchill knew that.

I think its safe to say that Stalin betrayed just about everyone at one time or another.

With Hitler's death war was over anyway. So what was more important? A war won now with most targets achieved and Stalin out of Central Europe? Or a conditional surrender of Germany? With all consequences of another year of war.

I think I covered this earlier in this post.

At last, what happened in the Rosenstraße was indeed remarkable. However I do not want to make the courage smaller of those demonstrants, but it was planned to release their husbands. The Gestapo/ SS had other plans: To deport other Jews. I do not remember the whole story though. However the demonstrants (unfortunately) did not break the will of the Nazis. (Although I do not think it wasn't possible like Cardinal Clemens Graf von Galen showed.)

Unfortunately that is something we will never know since it was never really an issue. What we do know is that in isolated cases the regime's policies were thwarted through a variety of means. I'm not sure it could have been stopped through more extensive protests but its a shame it wasn't tried.

So much rationalization...

Firstly, why is it wrong for Germany to say "I support you" to Austria, it's only reliable ally?

Secondly, self determination of the German people...I don't think the German people decided to become part of Poland, France, or any nation other than Germany.

Thirdly, saying "he did it too! What about him?!" Only supports the argument that Germany only acted fairly. If you are going to follow a "him too" policy, keep in mind:

-The agression of all other imperialistic powers in Europe (All of the major allies save the US, and even the US is arguable)
-The fact that the Great War started as a conflict between Austria and Serbia, not Germany
-The acts of a party do not reflect the citizenry as a whole, and therefore the people of Germany were meant to be the whipping boy for the party. Keep in mind that the neuremberg trials were soft on Nazis so as not to seem as authoritarian as the Reich was (an example is an SS man who slaughtered hundreds getting a 3 year prison sentence). So the people to blame for WW2 got off easy, and the rest of the people were sucker punched in the gut

Well Germany was screwed. Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire were killed:)

By the same people who screwed Germany in WWI :)

Any country that looses a war badly usually gets "screwed" in the peace agreements if it doesn't have enough bargaining chips at the negotiating table.

I'd also disagree that the Nuremberg trials were soft on those that they sentenced, in some cases the sentences could be argued to be unduly harsh. What the allies seemed to go for at the initial Nuremberg trials however was not the punishment of individuals responsible for a small part of the crimes of the Nazi regime but rather those responsible for important parts of the regime.

Look at a sample of 5 senior members of Hitler's regime say Goering, Himmler, Bormann, Goebels and Donitz. Four of them died by their own hand and the 5th spent 8 years in prison when arguably he did little directly to deserve it compared to others. I don't think that counts as getting off easy, although admitedly it would have been much better if the middle three had also been brought to trial. The chances are the result would have been the same though. Its difficult to imagine any Allied court not handing those three a death sentence, in fact I think Nuremberg did sentence Bormann to death in his absence since at the time his fate was uncertain.

OK, to say Germany got screwed I mean, is it right that, immediatly following the war, areas that, at that time, held a majority German culture were given to another country. I understand this has happened through-out history before and that these lands were, long before, Polish, but was it right to give these predominatly German territories to another culture? I see no reason to give them these places now, the question is was it right then?

No, it was not right to take a country and give it to someone else

It's never right for once country to overstep it's sovereignty and decide the borders of another nation

@ aelf: At first Condi is foreing states secretary and IIRC she was several times in Baghdad. However such an incident would now lead to a severe crise at best even today.
Also if you read history much more carefully it will become clear that bothe Marocco crises were initiated by France and not Germany.

@ PH: How can you then argue, if the Allies did not know about that, that they did not help them just because of that? Also there was one single attampt to give the power to Himmler but very soon this was abandoned. And concerning the enemy (Stalin) in the east I do not see what was wrong continuing the fights. Anyway it was for all resistance members clear that the war was over as soon as Hitler was removed.
The whole German Ersatzarmee, the army to garrison Germany, was totally under control of the resistance. All important generals were at least asked, and most of them agreed to follow the new government in case of Hitler's assassination. That they had no support in the Wehrmacht is not true.
They misread Hitler indeed. But to do that what they attempted to do I cannot blame them for their doubts.
As Dönitz was the last head of state, he indeed fired the Nazis, ordered investigations in the KZs and tried to rebuild Democracy by preparing elections, although because of the situation most of this remained only a fragment, the Allies had to imprison him at least. Otherwise they had to negotiate with him. But the death penalty all awaited was avoided by his attourney. So he was found guilty for things which seem to be far fetched.

Adler

On the origins of WW1, I would say this thread will be an interesting read...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

Basically Europe was just a powder-keg waiting to go off, at any slightest chance...

How can you then argue, if the Allies did not know about that, that they did not help them just because of that?

Because to the allies it seemed like the conspirators were merely out to save their own reputations.

Also there was one single attampt to give the power to Himmler but very soon this was abandoned.

It still makes a mockery of the notion that they were utterly committed to the removal of the nazi regime and brings into doubt just how thoroughly they would persue Nazi war criminals.

And concerning the enemy (Stalin) in the east I do not see what was wrong continuing the fights. Anyway it was for all resistance members clear that the war was over as soon as Hitler was removed.

So you say, but to the allies the war wasn't going to end until Germany had surrendered to all the allied powers. There wasn't going to be a repeat of World War One's seperate peace agreements. Because of this the war obviously wasn't going to be over when Hitler was removed, no matter how often you make the claim.

Rightly or wrongly that was the stated aim of all the allies, so plotters coming forward claiming to be able to remove Hitler and negotiate a peace with one side of the allied powers wasn't going to be recieved well, if at all.

The whole German Ersatzarmee, the army to garrison Germany, was totally under control of the resistance. All important generals were at least asked, and most of them agreed to follow the new government in case of Hitler's assassination. That they had no support in the Wehrmacht is not true.

I didn't say they had no support, just that many of the generals refused to openly support their cause, something quite different. Manstein's response after Stalingrad was "Prussian field marshals do not mutiny" and apparently von Rundstedt's response was about the same. Earlier than Stalingrad, apart from in 1938 it was all but impossible to get general consensus in the army due to the popularity of Hitler's moves. Army officers may have disagreed with some of what he did, and many probably thought the war was unwinnable after the US entry and failure to defeat Russia quickly but actively take steps to remove him - in most cases no.

They may have almost universally agreed to stay quiet about the plot and not oppose the regime change if it was sucessful but what I was saying was that they weren't interested in taking an active part in the plot, and therefore it lacked necessary support.

Hitler was the needle to hold western Allies and the Soviets together. Over short or long (as it showed in reality) this unnatural alliance had to collapse. However that is mere speculations. We simply do not know, what would have happened, but considering the real post war plans of the Allies (or better lack of) an unconditional surrender might not have taken place.
Anyway it seems you do not understand the German officers and resistance fighters. The original Prussian morale and behaviour was (nearly) excluding a coup d'état. The officers had made an oath on Hitler and despite the fact that this was illegal, they believed in this. Although for some this was only an excuse later. However killing a leader, even if it was Hitler, seemed very problematic to justify. You also seem to have problems. You argue the Allies could not trust them as they were traitors. But then OTOH you attack the German generals not acting. And that's not correct.
Yes, they had to get more support. But that is easier said today as it was then to do so.

Adler

@ aelf: At first Condi is foreing states secretary and IIRC she was several times in Baghdad. However such an incident would now lead to a severe crise at best even today.

Being in Baghdad isn't quite the same as being in Sadr City.

Yes, I agree that a subsequent crisis was perfectly natural. But, then again, the Serbs had actually agreed to almost every single demand Austria made. If the latter wanted a diplomatic solution, it would have tried come to a compromise instead of declaring war. Evidently, Austria and Germany thought that they could get something out of their belligerence.

Also if you read history much more carefully it will become clear that bothe Marocco crises were initiated by France and not Germany.


I quote Wiki for easy reference:

The First Moroccan Crisis (also known as the Tangier Crisis) refers to the international crisis over the colonial status of Morocco between March 1905 and May 1906.

The crisis was brought about by the visit of Kaiser Wilhelm II to Tangier in Morocco on March 31, 1905. The Kaiser made certain remarks in favour of Moroccan independence, a challenge to French influence in Morocco. France had her influence in Morocco reaffirmed by Britain (by the Entente Cordiale) and Spain in 1904, a move that Germany saw as a blow to her interests and took diplomatic action to challenge. The German government sought a pan-European conference and Wilhelm II's provocation can be seen as a test of the strength of the Entente Cordiale.

The speech turned the French public against Germany and with British support the French foreign minister, Théophile Delcassé, took a defiant line. The crisis peaked in mid-June, when Delcassé was forced out of the ministry by the more conciliation minded premier Maurice Rouvier. But by July, Germany was becoming isolated and the French agreed to a conference to solve the crisis. Both France and Germany continued to posture up to the conference, with Germany mobilizing reserve army units in late December and France actually moving troops to the border in January 1906.

The Agadir Crisis, also called the Second Moroccan Crisis, was the international tension sparked by the deployment of the German gunboat Panther, to the Moroccan port of Agadir on July 1, 1911.

Anglo–German tensions were especially high at this time since the Germans had started to attempt to surpass Britain's naval supremacy. When the British heard of the Panther's arrival in Morocco, they believed that the Germans meant to turn Agadir into a naval base on the Atlantic. The main result was to increase British fear and hostility and to draw Britain closer to France.

The German move was aimed at reinforcing claims for compensation for acceptance of effective French control of the North African kingdom, where France's pre-eminence had been upheld by the 1906 Algeciras Conference following the Tangier Crisis (or First Moroccan Crisis) of the previous year.

Franco-German negotiations initiated on July 9 in 1911 at Treaty of Fez, led to the conclusion (November 4) of a convention under which Germany accepted France's position in Morocco in return for territory in the French Equatorial African colony of Middle Congo (now the Republic of the Congo). This 275 000 km² territory, known as Neukamerun, became part of the German colony of Kamerun and part of German West Africa, which only lasted briefly until they were captured by the allies in World War I. The area is partly marsh land where Sleeping sickness was widespread, although it did give Germany an outlet on the Congo River. Also as part of the treaty, Germany ceded France a small area of territory to the south-east of Fort Lamy, now part of Chad, as shown on this map.

What I learned agrees completely with what Wiki says. France actually gave way a little to help ease tensions. Care to elaborate on how a careful reading of this part of history could completely turn things around?

Wikipedia and also some books do not show everything indeed in both cases the French were initilising the crisis by trying to occupy Marocco. Also the famous Panthersprung nach Agadir was much less than it is written. The SMS Panther was a small guboat with 1 or 2 10,5 cm guns. It needed coal on her way for a yard refit and went to Agadir to coal and to look for the situation. Agadir was chosen as it was far away from the centre of the crise and should not dramatically change the situation. That also did not happen before a British newspaper got the news and made the visit nearly equal to the visit of the whole Hochseeflotte!
Be aware of Wikipedia.
Well, if Condi is shot in the suburb of Sadr City or the rest of Baghdad would be mostly irrelevant. Anyway, why do you believe to get the men behind the assassination was belligerence? Indeed Germany gave the Card Blanche only for negotiations. It was removed as soon as the realized there were no more negotiations. But then it was too late. Anyway to get the murderers Austria had a valid casus belli in that situation.
You're a Russian, are you?

Adler

Hitler was the needle to hold western Allies and the Soviets together. Over short or long (as it showed in reality) this unnatural alliance had to collapse. However that is mere speculations. We simply do not know, what would have happened, but considering the real post war plans of the Allies (or better lack of) an unconditional surrender might not have taken place.

I would prefer to say that Nazi Germany was the needle to hold the allies together. Whether Himmler, Hitler or a mix of politicians established by the army ran the government the allies wanted shot of it by their own hand.

Anyway it seems you do not understand the German officers and resistance fighters.

No I understand why they took the route they did just fine. what I'm pointing out is why their actions left the allies suspicious of them. I'm not trying to be overly critical of men like Stauffenberg, Treskow or the other conspirators, merely point out why it was difficult for the allies to accept them as a viable way to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion.

You also seem to have problems. You argue the Allies could not trust them as they were traitors. But then OTOH you attack the German generals not acting. And that's not correct.

It wasn't so much that they were traitors (where did I say that btw?) but rather that they weren't coming to the allies with anything the allies wanted to hear. The Casablanca conference had made it abundantly clear that the war would only end with unconditional surrender. The western allies felt rightly or wrongly a very real need to not make what they saw as the same mistakes of WW1. The conspirators found it impossible to accept those terms because it could mean the occupation of Germany by Russia, something none of them desired. Until they came around to accepting unconditional surrender they were not going to be entertained. By the time they did entertain unconditional surrender even the conspirators admited that the attempt was likely futile, by that stage the war was virtually certain to end that way for Germany anyway, for the new government would not have the stregnth to negotiate a peace. The idea that the plotters were traitors probably didn't feature very highly in the thinking of the allies frankly.

But yes I do criticise those Wermacht officers who couldn't find the moral courage to do more to actively oppose Hitler's regime. Had more done so the chances of a plot suceeding were likely to be increased. Yes they had their reasons, but as the plotters argued, the crimes of the Nazi regime outweighed any loyalty the army had to it.

Will be some major change if Hitler would be killed during war? Will be scenario when Göring, Himmler and others should not handle with it? Sorry for English...

On the origins of WW1, I would say this thread will be an interesting read...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

Basically Europe was just a powder-keg waiting to go off, at any slightest chance...

Impressive. :)

Okay, then let's discuss it here.
To ban annexions you have to do it completely. Otherwise the ban is not working. A annecting country may never be save about the annected lands. All treaties accepting that are in so far void. So being no part of the Federal Republic these lands are still German but only under Polish resp. Russian administration. They are in no way parts of that countries either.
That is a strong legal discussion here!
...
So, yes, Germany was screwed!
Adler

Sorry but you mix up two things here while claiming that you separate them - Legal and Moral (or whatever you think it is meant to be).

Annexions can become status quo and therefore become legitimated if accepted by international law and all relevant parties (look to the Balkan countries!)

At least with the 2+4 treaties in 1991, Germany regained full sovereignty and also accepted the 1991 borders without any claims to any other countries then, now and in the future. In this situation, the "new" Bundesrepublik Deutschland also became the juristic successor of the "Deutsches Reich" BTW, so your arguments earlier on, that the current Germany can't give away land to Poland is irrelevant.

Your thoughts are based on your moral point of view and while I challenge it, no one can take that away from you. However, from a juristical point of view no german governement or german high court judge would ever claim that the current situation is "illegal", as you indicate.

Anyway it seems you do not understand the German officers and resistance fighters. The original Prussian morale and behaviour was (nearly) excluding a coup d'état. The officers had made an oath on Hitler and despite the fact that this was illegal, they believed in this. Although for some this was only an excuse later. However killing a leader, even if it was Hitler, seemed very problematic to justify.
Adler

I agree. At this time, something like civil disobedience or even military disobedience was simply unknown in Germany. The whole society was built up on the system of obedience and this also reflected to the military (or vice versa). The fact that the german officers did not attest an oath to a constitution, president or parliament, but a living person called Adolf Hitler, shows the level of submission at this time.

As Dönitz was the last head of state, he indeed fired the Nazis, ordered investigations in the KZs and tried to rebuild Democracy by preparing elections, although because of the situation most of this remained only a fragment, the Allies had to imprison him at least. Otherwise they had to negotiate with him. But the death penalty all awaited was avoided by his attourney. So he was found guilty for things which seem to be far fetched.
Adler

I am not saying that all this is . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (although i think it is) but could you please give us some proof for the things you're claiming here?

Dönitz fired the Nazis? Come on, dude! He WAS a Nazi! He worked for them from 1939 till the end! What else do you need to become a gang member? Dönitz is often cited with "Der Führer wird wissen, was er tut. / The Fuehrer knows what he's doing."

So what he did after he became head of state was a show to reduce impact to Germany - nothing more, nothing less.

But I am really looking forward to your opinion. :)

in both cases the French were initilising the crisis by trying to occupy Marocco.

And this concerned Germany because?

German weltpolitik in action.

Also the famous Panthersprung nach Agadir was much less than it is written. The SMS Panther was a small guboat with 1 or 2 10,5 cm guns. It needed coal on her way for a yard refit and went to Agadir to coal and to look for the situation. Agadir was chosen as it was far away from the centre of the crise and should not dramatically change the situation. That also did not happen before a British newspaper got the news and made the visit nearly equal to the visit of the whole Hochseeflotte!

Nope. It's widely known that the Panther was only a gunboat. If Germany had sent something bigger, it might have been war right away. Germany was only throwing a tantrum. And if what you seem to be saying is true (that it only needed to refuel), what are the subsequent negotiations for, in which France even made concessions to Germany? So who is threatening who now?

Wikipedia and also some books do not show everything indeed... Be aware of Wikipedia.

Well, evidently, some books (probably German) are cooking up their own versions of history. If people really have credible information to the contrary, why don't they contribute to the Wiki article?

Well, if Condi is shot in the suburb of Sadr City or the rest of Baghdad would be mostly irrelevant.

Of course it is. If Condi went to Sadr City and got herself shot, a lot of people are going to be slapping their heads over how stupid she was.

Anyway, why do you believe to get the men behind the assassination was belligerence?

Then Austria should have waged war on individuals or fringe groups, not on Serbia.

Indeed Germany gave the Card Blanche only for negotiations. It was removed as soon as the realized there were no more negotiations. But then it was too late.

There were negotiations? :eek: :rolleyes: The last I heard it was an ultimatum and Austria refused to compromise.

Anyway to get the murderers Austria had a valid casus belli in that situation.

Wanting arrest some assassins is certainly not good enough an excuse to attack a whole country at the risk of a major regional war in the 20th century. And when the Archduke had known that it was dangerous and had still gone on to expose himself. Even the US had better excuses for invading Iraq.

You're a Russian, are you?

Nope. Far from it. What makes you think so?

Wanting arrest some assassins is certainly not good enough an excuse to attack a whole country at the risk of a major regional war in the 20th century. And when the Archduke had known that it was dangerous and had still gone on to expose himself. Even the US had better excuses for invading Iraq.


It would be good enough if the Austrians could demonstrate part of the Serbian government was involved in the assassination. If Outer Slobovia sent an assassin to the US who assassinated Dick Cheney, it would be an act of war.

@PH:
I wrongly made the impression you said, they were traitors. I am sorry. However that was seen so by Churchill.
Also you have to know the Prussian mentality. Originally you had to obey an order. And for the small soldiers on the battlefield they had to obey at any time. However the officers had not to obey criminal orders or orders being dangerous for the country. Otherwise their soldiers were free of guilt, but the officers had to accept the consequences. In the centuries before ww2 that system worked. There were orders which were problematic and they were not followed. As most known example is that of General Yorck von Wartenburg. He was commander of the Prussian army during the attack of Napoleon on Russia. As he protected the northern flank, as well as the Austrians the southern, both armies escaped destruction and remained intact. At Tauroggen in Lithunia near the East Prussian border he negotiated a cease fire with the Russians. Against the hesitating king, who ordered not to do so. However he did not obey his order but negotiated a cease fire which indeed lead to the end of the rulership of Napoleon.
As you can say, this is not a crime like the Nazis did here we have the point. Until 1941 the crimes of the Nazis were bad but not in the extent of the Holocaust. In 1943 the situation changed dramatically. So yes, from a point of view of today they had to go to Hitler and arrest/kill him at once. But that was such a radical act that many had still doubts.

@ Raki:
At first the Bundesrepublik did never act for the German Reich, which is still existing. Even if she has the ability to do so, she never did in the name of the Reich. On that reason the real juristical status of these areas is, that they are still parts of the German Reich, but only under Polish resp. Russian administration. But they are in no way parts of Poland or Russia (for the reasons I already explained).
Dönitz was indeed sentenced for ten years because he did not stop the order of Hitler to shoot commandos at once (although there is no known case of such an incident in the time after May 1st). And he was sentenced because of slave workers at Kriegsmarine yards, but that was originally something to blame Speer. Also he got so many BS from Hitler he could not clean everything.
However the day after he got to know about being president, Goebbels as Reichskanzler made that secret until his death, Himmler visited Dönitz at Flensburg with a SS unit. Dönitz gave some Uboat men weapons and positioned them in his HQ to attack the SS from their hidden places, if Himmler tried a coup d'état. Indeed Dönitz had a pistol hidden in the files before him during the negotiations. These negotiations were very loud. In the end Himmler was sent away. The official statement was that because of being so involved in the old regime there was no place for him anymore. I think so plite the discussion wasn't anyway the very next day all NS minister got or were sent their documents of dismission, ending the NS rulership.
Dönitz also abandoned the Nazi symbols as German marks as well as ordering investigations in the KZs.
After being arrested it was thought he was sentenced to death because of the Uboat warfare. But as Nimitz testified the US and Brits did the very same he was not found guilty therefore.
The Nuremberg Trials are (unfortunately) not as good as many think as also nulla poena sine lege is not accepted. Indeed the Holocaust was only a sidenote. The main point was the agressive warfare. But that was not a crime in Germany, Russia or France, even for the US and Britain it is doubtful. That's why no German government accepted this trial. All from Adenauer over Brandt to Schröder and Merkel. But to discuss that trial we should really start a new thread.

@aelf: Germany had some treaties with Marocco and German firms were working there. That's why Germany was interested what was going on there. I also do not say that the German diplomacy was the best then, however the starting of the crise was done by France by invading Marocco.
Wikipedia is made by people on their own. That means anyone who is interested in that can post there. But he can post things like Elvis had sex with Marylin Manson before taking too many pills. If there is nobody interested or knowing the opposite it is there. It can give you an overview but it is better to use the links for the other sources. They are more credible.
If she goes to Sadr City and if she is assassinated there by an Iranian agent sent to do this by the Iranian government it is quite uniteresting where she was shot. The location is unimportant. It could be somewhere on a planet in the Ceta Reticuli system or in her house in Washington. The fact, she was shot by an Iranian agent sent by Ahmedinedschad is enough.
Also the individuals Austria wanted to charge for that murder were large parts of the Serbian government making it very official. OTOH if Cheney and Condi ask a CIA agent to kill Ahmedinedshad Iran will declare war even if Bush does not know anything about that.

Adler

Perhaps you Soviets should be grateful Germany forgot their winter coats in Barbarossa?

I am really tired of all this stuff. :mad: The so-called "General Winter" is just an excuse made by those who tried to invade Russia and lost.


When Spanish king Philip II sent his "Armada" to England in order to depose Elizabeth from her throne and make England a Spanish province his fleet suffered a defeat from the English fleet( and, really, considering that the Duke of Parma, the Spanish admiral governing the Armada, was a man with not enough competence for such a task, as he wrote himself, etc.,) this was no surprise. But the Spanish did not want to suffer a disgrace, so they began spreading tales all over Europe about "the horrible winds" which destroyed the Armada.

When Napoleon invaded Russia and got kicked out, he in order to keep a bit of honor, blamed his failure on "that horrible Russian winter", althrough for the most part of his expedition the temperature was really warm (a little less them 0°C (32°F)). And only when he, already defeated, was approaching Poland on his way out of Russia, the weather got worse (-20°C (-4°F)). So "General Winter" had no impact on the result of Napoleon's campagin.

The same thing with Hitler... during the Battle for Moscow the weather was warm, and Stalingrad, BTW, is located roughly on the same longitude as Paris. Do not trust the losers, when they blaim bad weather as a primary reason for their fault. :nono:

On the topic:

In such situations the lands should belong to people who inhabit them, or, at least, remember inhabiting them themselves. Even if there was a German town called Stetten, it is now a Polish city called Schezyn. (sp.) History is irrelevant.

I agree, Napoleon was defeated by winter only.

I think Napoleon was to strong in fact.

His idea was to come into Russia with a big army. As usual, the opposite army (Russians) would come to protect their country. Their would be a big battle, Napoleon would won, force a peace treaty to Russia, and then come back before winter.
It should have worked. But it didn't.

Why? Russians knew the Grande Armée was to strong for them at the time. They knew facing it in battle would lead to the descruction of the Russian army. So they refused to fight.

They withdrew again and again, destroying all supplies.

Just before Moscow, they stopped withdrawing and fight a battle at Borodino (they couldn't let Moscow fall without even attempting a battle could they), and they lost... And then they withdrew again.

Napoleon did not think the Russians were ready to sacrifice half of their country, let Moscow be taken and burnt, waiting, refusing the battle again and again.

Then he was forced to retreat, and everyone knows the end.

Napoleon had a total of almost 700,000 troops. The Russians had 400,000 men available at first, and manage to increase it to 900,000 by the end of the campaign.

With 400,000, they new the would face Napoleon 1 vs 2 and would probably lose.

If Napoleon had come with let say 300,000 men , perhaps the Russians would not have refused the battle, and then he could have won.

It was a bid that may have turn succesfull. Instead, he went for overkill, and lose.

It would be good enough if the Austrians could demonstrate part of the Serbian government was involved in the assassination. If Outer Slobovia sent an assassin to the US who assassinated Dick Cheney, it would be an act of war.

Assassinated him where? What would you think if, like I said, he went to Sadr City and some fringe Shiite terrorist group which is loony enough to do anything assassinates him simply because it had the chance to do so while he was there? Even if that group has members within the Iranian government, would that really be seen as an act of war? It wouldn't unless you were looking for some reason to pick a fight in the first place.

Moreover, it was not as if the Austrian government reacted immediately. It made a calculated move that was only done with the tacit support of Germany, showing that it had ulterior motives besides seeking justice.

@aelf: Germany had some treaties with Marocco and German firms were working there. That's why Germany was interested what was going on there. I also do not say that the German diplomacy was the best then, however the starting of the crise was done by France by invading Marocco.

And how exactly would Germany's economic interests be affected? And the Crises were not precipitated by French takeover of Morocco. Don't twist things around. If Germany did not choose to be confrontational about it (or make belligerent declarations about supporting the Moroccan government earlier in the first place), would it have developed into a crisis?

And this wasn't the only impasse on Germany's part. What about the letter to Paul Kruger in the aftermath of the Jameson Raid? That certainly pissed the British off. Clearly, Germany's weltpolitik and inferiority complex with regards to colonies (probably linked to the Kaiser's own inferiority complex) was driving its foreign policy.

Also the individuals Austria wanted to charge for that murder were large parts of the Serbian government making it very official. OTOH if Cheney and Condi ask a CIA agent to kill Ahmedinedshad Iran will declare war even if Bush does not know anything about that.

And so Austrian government was like that of Iran today? A good and insightful comparison :goodjob:

Yeah it was thanks tactics of burnt land. Winter, desease, luck of supplies were main enemies of French army, not Russians.

BTW its interesting thread, 3 in 1 (WW1,WW2,Napoleonic wars) + upgrades (30 years war + Iran) :D

Also you have to know the Prussian mentality. Originally you had to obey an order. And for the small soldiers on the battlefield they had to obey at any time. However the officers had not to obey criminal orders or orders being dangerous for the country. Otherwise their soldiers were free of guilt, but the officers had to accept the consequences

I appreciate that already Adler. By their own admission therefore they have to accept the consequences of their failure to oppose the criminal orders of the Nazi regime. From all I've read though very few officers who survived the war did accept that they had any responsibility for not taking action. Indeed they seemed genuinely hurt and baffled that the allies would ascribe to them any association with the crimes.

As you can say, this is not a crime like the Nazis did here we have the point. Until 1941 the crimes of the Nazis were bad but not in the extent of the Holocaust. In 1943 the situation changed dramatically. So yes, from a point of view of today they had to go to Hitler and arrest/kill him at once. But that was such a radical act that many had still doubts.

Whilst agreeing that 1941 and 43 could be seen as points where the Nazis got progressively worse the fact remains that before then there was more than enough cause for concern. When Hitler gave an address to senior officers on the eve of Barbarossa for example he spoke about it being a "battle between two opposing world views" a "battle of anhialation" against "Bolshevik Commisars and the Communist Inteligentsia". The Einstatzgruppen existed before Barbarossa also, something the Army would have difficulty not being aware of. Also whilst the actions of the Nazi regime from 1943 got worse they were already barbaric enough to count as criminal. Nor was the army ignorant of the criminal actions either. Manstein for example in a rather stunning example of "see no evil" issued an order that his officers should not witness executions. Then of course there are officers like Reichenau (Paulus' predecessor in charge of 6th Army) who actively supported the racial policies of the state.

You mention Yorck's example, any officer familiar with it could tell that if Yorck was perfectly justified to refuse his orders they were more than justified in refusing theirs. The danger to Germany was the greater, and the illegality of the orders that much worse. So whilst I agree that there was reasoning for the Generals to not mutiny I do not believe those reasons were sufficient.

@ aelf: Germany got several things from Marocco and had close ties to the Maroccan economy. When the French tried to annex Marocco in 1905 resp. 1911 this was in danger.
You are misusing my comarasations. Iran was not Austria, but if you want to compare it, do that with Serbia. Anyway if a nation's high official is killed by a foreign terrorist and this one has ties to a foreign government it is a casus belli, if they do not allow investigations.
You can also take the king of Bhutan murdered by an Argentinian terrorist with connections to Argentina or vice versa.

@PH:
It was a difficult situation. Indeed the so called Kommisarsbefehl was retaken due to pressure by the generals. Also a coup was still the ultima ratio and to kill a head of state,... Well I would have tried to kill Hitler. But considering the whole situation and scruples added with an oath, no, I can't really blame them for not acting. It was a mistake- sure. But to blame them? Also remember their families were also in great danger then.

Adler

Indeed the so called Kommisarsbefehl was retaken due to pressure by the generals

Considering it was in force for just under a year at that stage, and that the Einsatzgruppen continued to operate for another year afterwards the withdrawl of that one order is rather moot. It merely shifted the killings out of sight and responsibility of the Wermacht rather than stopped them.

Also a coup was still the ultima ratio and to kill a head of state,... Well I would have tried to kill Hitler. But considering the whole situation and scruples added with an oath, no, I can't really blame them for not acting. It was a mistake- sure. But to blame them? Also remember their families were also in great danger then.

Here we come full circle to what began our discussion. Your original summary of the facts gave the impression (intended or not) that the allies ignored the plotters without reason. I put forward the reasons, and whether you personally agree with them or not, you have to admit that their reasons, when taken into account with how they viewed the situation were not invalid to them. Just as I realise that whilst I personally find the actions of the majority of German generals wrong and unbalanced, to them the reasons were valid.

I would add though that Hitler's ability to act against the plotters was directly proportinate to how many plotted against him, and the period concerned. The fewer who were involved in the plot, the greater the personal risk. The later the plotters waited (until a point late in the war when the Nazi state began to fall apart) the more secure a grasp Hitler had on power.

That the Kommissarsbefehl was still executed by the SS does not make the Wehrmacht responsible any more.
The German resistance had indeed more problems than the ones of other nations. They needed a certain support in the population and military, had to make a coup and had to avoid causing too much troubles at the front. I am admitting that the Allies had their own valid objectives. But helping the German resistance would have fulfilled these objectives much earlier. Also with a certain peace offer the support for the resistance might have been much higher than it was. That you have to admit, too. So was it better to have another year (roughly) of fighting or a peace much sooner?
Also you have to admit that most families of the plotters were indeed imprisoned. So a danger for them was there.

Adler

That the Kommissarsbefehl was still executed by the SS does not make the Wehrmacht responsible any more.

I beg to differ. The Wermacht knew perfectly well that the executions, round ups and crimes still took place. Just because they were no longer officially following the commisar order did not mean they could avoid responsibility for doing something about it. Quite apart from anything else the Wermacht by all accounts still often provided troops to assist the einsatzgruppen with rounding up the victims.

I've often heard the term "ignorance is no defence". The Wermacht may have feigned ignorance of the crimes, and certainly weren't the main culprits, but their subservient service as an organisation to the regime that committed and planned the crimes makes them partly responsible if you ask me.

The German resistance had indeed more problems than the ones of other nations. They needed a certain support in the population and military, had to make a coup and had to avoid causing too much troubles at the front. I am admitting that the Allies had their own valid objectives. But helping the German resistance would have fulfilled these objectives much earlier.

Given that the allies stated objectives were not agreed to by the plotters until after the allies no longer needed them I don't see the last claim as particularly valid.

Also with a certain peace offer the support for the resistance might have been much higher than it was. That you have to admit, too. So was it better to have another year (roughly) of fighting or a peace much sooner?

It was better for the plotters to accept the allied terms earlier rather than waiting until they became a foregone conclusion. Assuming the plotters planned to end the war with all the allies in the July plot though it was better IMO to listen to them. Assuming they only wanted to end the war with the west it was better to continue it. However that is with hindsight, and Churchill and Roosevelt didn't have that luxury.

Also you have to admit that most families of the plotters were indeed imprisoned. So a danger for them was there.

In 1944 when Hitler retained a great deal of power and still a sizeable portion of the Wermacht did not actively support the attempt. My point was that an earlier attempt which enjoyed more support would not have been as risky. Also although families of "traitors" (to Hitler that is) were imprisoned they were not always badly treated. Paulus' wife if memory serves survived the war despite being imprisoned for a year or more by the regime.

Well if were going to throw paragraphs and agreements at each other...:satan:

In 1660 "A side note to the Treaty of Wehlau was that it contained a clause that said should the Hohenzollerns ever be unable to fill the Prussian throne, Prussia then would revert to its status as a Polish fiefdom, but unfortunately the Hohenzollerns didn’t vacate the Prussian throne until 1918, by which time Poland couldn’t enforce the Treaty of Wehlau…"

So "technically" Poland has a right to Prussia!:king: ;)

Well, the treaty of Wehlau and the other treaties up to the treaty of Oliva expired at last, when king Frederic I. died in 1713, as these treaties had to be renewed whenever one of the monarchs died (if a Polish monarch died between 1698 and 1713 then it is that date, dunno atm). So being not expired Poland accepted the rulership of Brandenburg in Prussia without restrictions, as they did not protest. :p :p :p ;)

Adler

Darn! Well then there is only one way to settle this then! You and me outside at dawn, you pick the weapons! :splat:

Have you seen the organs in the Cathedral of Oliwa? It is quite something, with moving special effects, like angels with trumpets and spinning suns and stuff, the Cathedral in it self is super and how the organs are incorporated in the overall design.

@ aelf: Germany got several things from Marocco and had close ties to the Maroccan economy. When the French tried to annex Marocco in 1905 resp. 1911 this was in danger.

What exactly was in danger? The 1904 Entente Cordiale between France and Britain had agreed that Morocco should be in the French sphere of influence. What was Germany's purpose in supporting Moroccan 'independence' in 1905, other than to test the Cordiale and hopefully drive a wedge between France and Britain? Do you see France coming out and opposing German influence on New Guinea?

And in 1911, the Sultan of Morocco, to whom the Kaiser had shown his 'support', actually asked the French to intervene to suppress a rebellion, which the French did (for their own reasons, of course, but that had nothing to do with Germany). Then Germany protested and announced that it had to protect is citizens in southern Morocco (even though there were effectively none). The Panther went and rescued a grand total of ONE German :rolleyes: All this child wanted was some sort of compensation for something that had nothing to do with it (and it got it, albeit less than what it wanted). What a brat!

Anyway if a nation's high official is killed by a foreign terrorist and this one has ties to a foreign government it is a casus belli, if they do not allow investigations.

Take a look at Austria's ultimatum:

Austria-Hungary demanded that the Serbian government should undertake the following:


To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Austrian Monarchy;
To dissolve immediately the society styled Narodna Odbrana (National Defence), and to proceed in the same manner against the other societies which engage in propaganda against Austria;
To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and the methods of instruction, all that serves or might serve to foment propaganda against Austria-Hungary;
To remove from the military service and the administration in general all officers guilty of propaganda against Austria-Hungary, names of which were to be provided by the Austro-Hungarian government;
To accept the collaboration in Serbia of organs of the Austro-Hungarian government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the monarchy;
To begin a judicial inquiry against the accessories to the plot of June 28th who are on Serbian territory, with organs delegated by the Austro-Hungarian government participating in the investigation;
To immediately arrest two named persons implicated by the preliminary investigation undertaken by Austria-Hungary;
To prevent by effective measures the cooperation of Serbia in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier;
To furnish Austria-Hungary with explanations regarding statements from high Serbian officials both in Serbia and abroad, who have expressed hostility towards Austria-Hungary; and
To notify Austria-Hungary without delay of the execution of these measures.


The fact that Serbia had agreed to all but one of these (severe) demands dispel any idea that Austria wanted reasonable negotiations. It was more like, "We think some people who were possibly working for some of you killed our prince in dangerous territory and you better let us come in and do anything we want, or else we'd declare war and to hell with Russia and the whole of Europe!"

@Pokurcz: Then I take the same weapon Virchow chose when he was demanded by Bismarck. Do you know which one?

Sausages! ;)

Adler

Bratwurst against Krakauer it is then!:D

To the victor go the spoils (sausages)!

(Haven't heard that one dough)

@Pokurcz: Then I take the same weapon Virchow chose when he was demanded by Bismarck. Do you know which one?

Sausages! ;)

Adler

Do you think being beaten to death with sausage, an ordeal that could last for hours if the sausages are soft enough, is really a better fare than being cleanly shot dead?

Well, sausage tastes better...

Well, sausage tastes better...
No, no, no! You guys are missing the point! Virchow would only agree to a sausage eating contest with Bismarck on the condition he first get to prepare the Iron Chancellor's sausage with trichines, nasty little parasitical worms.:lol:

Yep, indeed. (Although I think it is an urban legend. Indeed Bismarck was once so furious that he wanted a duel but after being calmed down by other member of the Reichstag he took that demand back).

Adler

@ aelf:

Britain and France might have agreed to give Marocco to France, but that is considering the relations between others irrelevant as being a treaty to harm a third and in so far void. That means they could not have dealt with the German relations in Marocco.

The ultimatum at Serbia was harsh, but you do not see the main point. The main point was to capture the men behind the assassination. As that was denied, as no Austrian investigator was involved, war broke out (after Russia had given support to Serbia). Why do you try to justify a murder? Franz-Ferdinand was no tyrant nor did he something criminal. He was just driving in a car in a part of Austria-Hungary. To compare it, it would be like Cheyney shot in the Bronx by a North Korean agent sent by Kim (to get rid about Iran). That he was at a dangerous place, what I deny, is irrelevant. You make it the same as wearing a shirt "shoot me, I am a bloody n*gger hater" in the Bronx! (sorry for that word!) But that wasn't.

Adler

Yep, indeed. (Although I think it is an urban legend. Indeed Bismarck was once so furious that he wanted a duel but after being calmed down by other member of the Reichstag he took that demand back).

Adler
I've read at least one German historian claiming it was rather a cooly calculated move, Bismarck huffing and puffing and acting all affronted, to try to get rid of the irritating leader of the Liberal opposition by simply killing him under semi-legal forms.

After all, there was at least one case where "an officer and a gentleman" in Berlin called out the police inspector investigating his alleged wrongdoing, and stopped all inquieries by shooting him dead.

The ultimatum at Serbia was harsh, but you do not see the main point. The main point was to capture the men behind the assassination. As that was denied, as no Austrian investigator was involved, war broke out (after Russia had given support to Serbia). Why do you try to justify a murder?

Does 1 murder justify a war?

If there is an enemy causing unrest in your territories and then even murders one high ranking offcial and tries to hide the involvement, don't you think that it isn't enough?

Adler

Britain and France might have agreed to give Marocco to France, but that is considering the relations between others irrelevant as being a treaty to harm a third and in so far void. That means they could not have dealt with the German relations in Marocco.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I assume you mean the treaty is void because it is an unequal treaty (from Morocco's perspective), or that Germany wasn't consulted so it did not have to comply with it. Well, in the context of those times that treaty was perfectly valid. The main colonial rivals in Africa were the British and the French. You do not consult Australia when you sign a space treaty, do you, even though Australia is an important country that might even have scientists working in space projects? And don't tell me Germany actually cared for the Moroccans :rolleyes:

The ultimatum at Serbia was harsh, but you do not see the main point. The main point was to capture the men behind the assassination. As that was denied, as no Austrian investigator was involved, war broke out (after Russia had given support to Serbia). Why do you try to justify a murder? Franz-Ferdinand was no tyrant nor did he something criminal. He was just driving in a car in a part of Austria-Hungary. To compare it, it would be like Cheyney shot in the Bronx by a North Korean agent sent by Kim (to get rid about Iran). That he was at a dangerous place, what I deny, is irrelevant. You make it the same as wearing a shirt "shoot me, I am a bloody n*gger hater" in the Bronx! (sorry for that word!) But that wasn't.

So what was the main point, then? Which government in the world is clean? And if one fringe extremist group that does not represent the country or even the government commits a terrorist act, do you have the right to declare war on the whole country? And it was not as if that country was not wiling to come to a compromise. Are you a fervent supporter of the ongoing war in Iraq, by any chance?

And where did you get the idea that I was trying to justify the murder? Did I say that it was perfectly alright to kill him because he went there? No - I said that he could have prevented it himself, so all the more you do not have a strong case in placing the whole blame on Serbia or its government for that tragedy. Are you making an appeal to morality? Then you tell me the morality behind Austria's actions and Germany's support for them.

If there is an enemy causing unrest in your territories and then even murders one high ranking offcial and tries to hide the involvement, don't you think that it isn't enough?

Serbia would have taken steps to solve the first problem if it was given the chance. As for the second one, again I say that I can't believe you blame the entire Serbian government or nation for that tragedy. If you were a leader in Israel or Palestinian government, there would never be peace.

If there is an enemy causing unrest in your territories and then even murders one high ranking offcial and tries to hide the involvement, don't you think that it isn't enough?

Adler

For war? Hell no!

Military action that you know will result in a world war? Are you insane?

I agree actually. Same goes for Sudetenland, which was inhabited by a huge majority of Germans. Of course Hitler decided to take the rest of the Czech Republic and Slovakia as well, once he got the strip of borderland named Sudetenland.. but still. Former Prussia was always mixed, but Germans were the majority. It's because the Russians were so greedy and took parts of Poland, that Germany had to give some territory as compensation to the Poles.

I don't think The Sudetenland was everpart of Germany prior to 1938. It belonged to Austria -Hungary. So Hitler claiming that the people that lived there were 'German' was as false as calling the Austrians Germans. No vote was ever held for these people to decide their loyalties or future.

The reason The Russians took so much territory and Poland gained much was to act as a buffer against future German (and possibly western)agression. The Russians had suffered terribly in both wars and didn't like the idea of going through it again.

Russia deserved parts of germany, she did the most to defeat her and suffered the greatest. The spoils of war!

@aelf:
Germany had several economic treaties with Marocco at this time. These treaties were in danger as well as posessions of German firms. This danger was de facto legitimated by the Entente Cordiale treaty. That's why the treaty is in that points void. It would be roughly the same as if Britain and the US are making a treaty ceding Aruba to the US but Aruba is Dutch.

I thought because of your argumentation you were justifying the war. Anyway indeed is no government "clean", but causing unrest in a foreing state and murdering his politicians is too strong. Also the Black Hand was not a fringe group you try to tell us. Indeed it was a terror organisation like the Hisbollah today. It was supported by large parts of the government to cause unrest and pain in a foreign country. And many ministers having at least close ties, if they were no members at all, with them.
Also to be clear: I was ever against the war in Iraq.
Serbia's government was guilty. Not Serbia totally. Here the Serbian government had no chance to reveal all plotters indeed. But that was hardly expectable as no Austrian or neutral investigator could see that. It would have been like giving the NKWD the order to investigate the death of an opposition member in a gulag. With other words: No one committing a crime would be told to investigate the crime! Not seeing this is a great sign of ignorance and stubbornity.

@ warpus:
All what was planned by Austria was a military expedition, at most a war with Serbia. No world war was planned. Did you have that topic already at school?

@ rilnator:
The Sudetenland was mainly inhabited by Germans. And until 1866 it was part of Germany until Austria finally decided not to be part of Germany any more. The kingdom of Bohemia was part of the HRE for nearly thousand years. However concerning Germany of 1867/70/71 it wasn't. But who asked them to become Chechs before?
Anyway it is clear Russia suffered much in both wars. But does that really justify the other crimes? Also Stalin had also plans to attack Hitler. Well, not in 1941 but in 1942 or 1943 he would have attacked. Also Stalin and the USSR had always an agressive kind of defence policy. Thus it was only his expansionism to make it so. The rest is mere propaganda.

Adler

All what was planned by Austria was a military expedition, at most a war with Serbia. No world war was planned. Did you have that topic already at school?

Yes, and the Austro-Hungarian leadership totally forgot abut the collective defense agreement between Russia and Serbia. They also apparently forgot that Germany pledged to support Austria-Hungary in the event of an attack by a 3rd party.

So at least a war involving Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia..

Not to mention that it was clear to the Austrians that Germany would invade France and thus bring Britain into the war.. due to the Schlieffen Plan.

It was clear that an Austrian 'military expedition' to Serbia would result in a war involving all the great powers. It is clear to me, it was clear to the Austrians, but apparently it is not clear to you. :crazyeye:

Yeah, why wait a month if they were concerned with the investigation? On the other hand, they could use that time to get their military ready . . .

Warpus, it is clear for you and it is clear for me, but it wasn't clear to them. Nobody thought about a new war until it was too late. Read Guns of August.

Adler

@aelf:
Germany had several economic treaties with Marocco at this time. These treaties were in danger as well as posessions of German firms. This danger was de facto legitimated by the Entente Cordiale treaty. That's why the treaty is in that points void. It would be roughly the same as if Britain and the US are making a treaty ceding Aruba to the US but Aruba is Dutch.

But they did not protest the Treaty when it was signed, did they? What the Kaiser did was go there and stir up trouble the following year. Any evidence that he used the proper diplomatic channels or raised the matter in a professional manner? Anyway, your "danger" remains vague. And if there was only one German in southern Morocco, where the Panther went, I really wonder what sort of German companies had a huge stake in that country.

I thought because of your argumentation you were justifying the war. Anyway indeed is no government "clean", but causing unrest in a foreing state and murdering his politicians is too strong. Also the Black Hand was not a fringe group you try to tell us. Indeed it was a terror organisation like the Hisbollah today. It was supported by large parts of the government to cause unrest and pain in a foreign country. And many ministers having at least close ties, if they were no members at all, with them.
Also to be clear: I was ever against the war in Iraq.
Serbia's government was guilty. Not Serbia totally. Here the Serbian government had no chance to reveal all plotters indeed. But that was hardly expectable as no Austrian or neutral investigator could see that. It would have been like giving the NKWD the order to investigate the death of an opposition member in a gulag. With other words: No one committing a crime would be told to investigate the crime! Not seeing this is a great sign of ignorance and stubbornity.

We are really going round and round. All you're going to do is contradict whatever I say when it is possible or keep banging on the same point. I will maintain my position as well, but that is because I don't see a satisfactory answer that demonstrates how Austria's reaction was reasonable given the Serbian willingness to comply with all but one of the harsh terms it was given. I also don't see any reason why Austria would seek German support unless they knew Russia would be dragged into a confontration (and possibly France and Britain, by extension), which means they knew the risks but threw compromise out of the window and took them anyway.

And the Black Hand is not such a big organisation, certainly not comparable to Hizbollah. You're mixing up National Defence (Narodna Odbrana) with it. It is a fringe group since it broke away from its large and more moderate parent organisation. At its height in 1914 it only had at most 2500 members. The KKK has many more. You don't consider the Thule Society to be any more than a fringe group, do you, despite the status of some of its members?

Yes, and the Austro-Hungarian leadership totally forgot abut the collective defense agreement between Russia and Serbia. They also apparently forgot that Germany pledged to support Austria-Hungary in the event of an attack by a 3rd party.

So at least a war involving Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia..

Not to mention that it was clear to the Austrians that Germany would invade France and thus bring Britain into the war.. due to the Schlieffen Plan.

It was clear that an Austrian 'military expedition' to Serbia would result in a war involving all the great powers. It is clear to me, it was clear to the Austrians, but apparently it is not clear to you. :crazyeye:

That's not completely right. It's even funnier than that. Britain did not exactly declare war on Germany for attacking France. The British were in fact divided on whether they should get involved at all. What forced them was Germany's invasion of Belgium (whose neutrality was ratified by the 1839 Treaty of London). And Germany's only reason for that was they needed passage (which Belgium refused on account of its neutrality) for the Schlieffen Plan.

Yeah, why wait a month if they were concerned with the investigation? On the other hand, they could use that time to get their military ready . . .

Thank you.

It's sad to see that the Germans are beginning to forget the past. Maybe it's only a matter of time before some German politician questions the reality of the Holocaust (and would probably be forced to clarify his statement within days :mischief:). Heck, such a person would even find a friend in the world's latest nuclear power wannabe ;)

The Alliance between France and Britain was a serious blow for the German Reich. So another problem with attacking that point was not sensible that time. Also being void per se nothing must be attacked at once.

The Black Hand was a terror organisation. They controlled the Serbian government de facto. Why can't you accept that? Also to give the Austrians the total fault, as this was the main point. The members of the Black Hand had to be trialed for the murder. That was the main aim. If Serbia accepted this and not another point the Austrians most likely would not have declared war. Also it was the tactic to show the Russians the teeth as both Germany and Austria did not think Russia would go for war. A world war might have been forseeable now, but it wasn't then. Also I can give you the advice to read Guns of Augus by Barbara Tuchman, too.

I think it is sad to see people being as chauvinistic to think the Germans were all nazis. Indeed we will never forget the Holocaust and we will never deny that crime (except some brown iditots). But does that mean we should not remember the crimes doen to Germans by the Allies? Who thinks in this very way is as bad as the Nazi scum!

Adler

The Alliance between France and Britain was a serious blow for the German Reich. So another problem with attacking that point was not sensible that time. Also being void per se nothing must be attacked at once.

The Entente Cordiale was not an alliance. In any case, the fact that Britain and France were allies during the war had more to do with Germany's actions than anything else.

The Black Hand was a terror organisation. They controlled the Serbian government de facto. Why can't you accept that?

Because there is no evidence of that. Yes, it was a terror organisation, but it was supported by members of the military and the government, not by the government itself. Did it control the Serbian government? Sure. And the Illuminati controlled them.

Also to give the Austrians the total fault, as this was the main point. The members of the Black Hand had to be trialed for the murder. That was the main aim. If Serbia accepted this and not another point the Austrians most likely would not have declared war.

What? Really. A staunch defender of the Iraq war might offer this sort of logic.

Also it was the tactic to show the Russians the teeth as both Germany and Austria did not think Russia would go for war. A world war might have been forseeable now, but it wasn't then.

They did not think Russia would possibly go to war? Well, they have must been idiots, then! That's not too flattering, but I don't think so anyway. It was certainly a gamble. Even they could not have failed to see that at that time. They took the risk and paid the price. The sad thing is others had to pay a price too.

I think it is sad to see people being as chauvinistic to think the Germans were all nazis. Indeed we will never forget the Holocaust and we will never deny that crime (except some brown iditots). But does that mean we should not remember the crimes doen to Germans by the Allies? Who thinks in this very way is as bad as the Nazi scum!

I'm certainly not chauvinistic. I have nothing against Germans. I'm not a European and I have no vested interests whatsoever. And I'm not even saying that everybody else is innocent. What bothers me is the amount of historical 'revisionism' that you are applying here. In fact, your views smack of nationalism and chauvinism. Denying the Holocaust is only a few steps down the slippery slope.

The Entente Cordiale was de facto an Alliance.

Also if the members of the government are also members of a terror organisation, who controls the government, the terror organisation? Or does the government control the terror organisation? In any ways the result is the same.

We can discuss about Iraq in another thread.

That they were idiotic not to see the results, I agree. But no one really did until it was too late (at least no resposible one).

Why I am chauvinistic or nationalistic? I am only the opinion that someone did something wrong to Germany, nothing more or less. I never denied the Holocaust nor will I do it ever. I never said it here nor anywhere else. However from such a left point of view everything seems near to deny the Holocaust.

Adler

The Entente Cordiale was de facto an Alliance.

It was more of a mutual understanding. Nothing bound Britain to enter a war on the side of France even in 1914.

Also if the members of the government are also members of a terror organisation, who controls the government, the terror organisation? Or does the government control the terror organisation? In any ways the result is the same.

It is certainly not the same. If you say that National Defence controlled the government, you can still make your argument fly. However, in the case of the Black Hand, only certain members of the government supported it. If the whole government did, there wouldn't have been a larger, more influential and methodically different group like National Defence.

That they were idiotic not to see the results, I agree. But no one really did until it was too late (at least no resposible one).

So you agree the Austrian and German authorities were pretty much irresponsible?

Why I am chauvinistic or nationalistic? I am only the opinion that someone did something wrong to Germany, nothing more or less. I never denied the Holocaust nor will I do it ever. I never said it here nor anywhere else. However from such a left point of view everything seems near to deny the Holocaust.

You did everything in your power to justify German actions that led to WW1 and seemed to be in agreement with another poster with regards to putting most (if not all) of the blame on other countries for events before and after the war, against the accepted facts that most of the posters here also agree with. That sounds pretty nationalistic to me. I didn't say you denied the Holocaust. But denying Germany's culpability in WW1 is one step away from justifying its position in WW2. Another step and you'd be saying that the Holocaust was a political fabrication and media sensationalization that did not really happen.

Its allways about same:(, Serbian goverment was mainly nacionalistic independent and was trying avoid war, the entente cordiale was pact mainly editing spheres of influence

When Germany was poor victim of history, why they attacked Belgium? New theory will make me realy happy.

@aelf:

If certain members of the government can force it not to stop their terror plans or make a useful warning, who is de facto controlling it? The Serbian Prime Minister was fearing for his life when he made a so complicated warning. He did not dare to do more. So the Black Hand was controlling the government.

ALL diplomats in that time played a bad game.

I am not saying Germany has no guilt upon ww1. However it has not the main guilt, nor much more than others. Indeed Germany and Britain were the last to try to stop the war. Indeed it was a mistake to attack Belgium. It would have been better to let the French doing this first. However you want to give Germany the main fault. And that's not right.
Also your "step theory" is bloody nonsense. It is a killing argument. I could also say that because of my posts here you feel a dislike. That is the first step to hatred and hatred the first step to murder.

@ REDY: If Serbia was so innocent, why they avoided an investigation on Serbian soil, like Austria did for Serbia about 50 years ago in a similar case?

Adler

@ Adler

The time has come for you to put your money where your mouth is. There is no proof to show that the Black Hand had any connection to the Serbain governement. Additionally, none has ever been found. The officer who gave the weapons to the plotters was acting on his own.

Can you elaborate on the comparison between the Black Hand and Hisbollah please.

If certain members of the government can force it not to stop their terror plans or make a useful warning, who is de facto controlling it? The Serbian Prime Minister was fearing for his life when he made a so complicated warning. He did not dare to do more. So the Black Hand was controlling the government.

False. It is said that the FBI may have been responsible for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Does that mean the US government was possibly under the control of the FBI? Bollocks.

ALL diplomats in that time played a bad game.

Evidently the Austrian diplomats too, then.

I am not saying Germany has no guilt upon ww1. However it has not the main guilt, nor much more than others. Indeed Germany and Britain were the last to try to stop the war. Indeed it was a mistake to attack Belgium. It would have been better to let the French doing this first. However you want to give Germany the main fault. And that's not right.

But Austria and Germany were the main troublemakers. You have not proven that this is not true. You kept saying that the Serbian government was at fault for assassinating the Archduke, but there's still no reason to believe that this was true. In any case, things could have been worked out if Austria and Germany were willing to come to a compromise. But they weren't. And why would the French want to invade Belgium? Their war plans were centred on Alsace-Lorraine. And, as I said, Belgium was protected by the 1839 treaty. Only the Germans seemed to see it fit to ignore that treaty for the sake of the Schlieffen Plan. And your excuses for German belligerence prior to that are either vague or groundless. What are the 'dangers' that are posed to German 'economic interests' during the Moroccan Crises, for example?

Also your "step theory" is bloody nonsense. It is a killing argument. I could also say that because of my posts here you feel a dislike. That is the first step to hatred and hatred the first step to murder.

It's not even part of the argument. It's just my view of the way things are heading. Some people may not buy the 'slippery slope' argument, I give you that. But that doesn't mean that it is entirely nonsense. It just depends on who you are talking about, and I don't know you enough to say that you definitely would not go down the slope. And saying that I would possibly murder you over this requires many more leaps of logic than saying that you would possibly try to deny or justify the Holocaust.

@ REDY: If Serbia was so innocent, why they avoided an investigation on Serbian soil, like Austria did for Serbia about 50 years ago in a similar case?

Because, like it or not, there are issues of sovereignity. Which country would willingly allow another country to conduct such extensive investigations (which requires wide-ranging powers) on its soil? I think even normal criminal investigations are sometimes problematic today. You can't just go to another country and do anything you want. You might have to take it from their cold, dead hands. In fact, that's what Austria and Germany did, and they have to accept the responsibility.

@ Happy Alex: I can give you the advice back. And that the Black Hand was not involved, well do you believe at Santa Claus?

@ Aelf:
Given that's true, what I do not think, the US government is guilty if there were FBI agents in her, which could dominate the government.

Killing the Austrian arch duke is no trouble? Nearly invading Belgium, there were indeed Frnch plans doing so, was also okay? Why don't you see that Germany has not the main guilt?

However before starting here a war we should just agree to disagree. As last remark: Look in real history books.

Adler

@ Happy Alex: I can give you the advice back. And that the Black Hand was not involved, well do you believe at Santa Claus?

@ Aelf:
Given that's true, what I do not think, the US government is guilty if there were FBI agents in her, which could dominate the government.

Killing the Austrian arch duke is no trouble? Nearly invading Belgium, there were indeed Frnch plans doing so, was also okay? Why don't you see that Germany has not the main guilt?

However before starting here a war we should just agree to disagree. As last remark: Look in real history books.

Adler


???

Maybe that's god enough for you to draw that conclusion, but it dosen't stand up in a court of law. How many crimes could I be convicted of just because I couldn't proove I was not there. You should know better.

The fact is is that France didn't invade Belgium. I agree with you that there was alot of bungling into WW1 but the Germans certainly made no coherent attempt to stop the events which unfolded. Answer me these questions if you can. Who actually ruled in Berlin in 1914? Where was the power? Who was making the decisions ? Once it did they made a damned good effort to create a German Empire in Europe. Don't dare argue with this Adler, we've got the paperwork to proove it and of course the evidence from history. You know evidence, like when Germany carved up eastern Europe at Brest Litovsk. And don't pretend they were setting up a system of pro-german satellites under benevolent German control like you did last time because that is frankly a lie.

Killing the Austrian arch duke is no trouble?

I didn't say that. My point is the Archduke's death fails to justify the subsequent actions Austria took that directly led to major war.

Nearly invading Belgium, there were indeed Frnch plans doing so, was also okay? Why don't you see that Germany has not the main guilt?

Again, please provide some proof.

However before starting here a war we should just agree to disagree. As last remark: Look in real history books.

What is 'real'?

Well, anyway, based on the reasoning of 'good arguments that fail', I agree that there's nothing I can do to convince you. The later part of this thread has pretty much become a duelling ground, and I think it has gone on for long enough too.

If you need a a real good article:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

I think we should close this thread here, as it became too personal.

Adler

At the end of the day it boils down to this. Germany started a war of aggression and payed the price. Crap happens.

Addler some of your logic is quite dangerous. There are ethnic Germnas living in New Zealand and by your logic Germany could claim it has rights over New Zealand. Yeah right. Stupid example perhaps but there is at least one New Zealand themed cafe in Berlin so perhaps we can go over there and annex Berlin. Come to Kiwiana (formally Berlin) capital of the New New Zealand empire:p Any German in Czech or Polish lands who wanted unity with Germany should have got on the train and moved there.

Of course German civilians paid the price for the crimes of the Nazis/Germans/Wehrmact etc. Adler you don't seem to realise the depth of hate the rest of the world had towards Germans circa 1945. Any German in former occupied territories probably wouldn't have been to safe if the locals got their hands on them regardless of individual.

My mother was born in the war years and at the time I believe rationing was in effect. My grandmother never liked Germans or Japanese due to the war as rightly or wrongly she blamed them for killing several friends of hers who didn't return form the war. Did I mention New Zealand suffered some of the highest casualties per capita in the commonwealth/world in WW2. We had a Japanese foreign exchange student stay with us in 92 and my grandmother wasn't to impressed.

Zardnaar, I do not speak about Kiwiana or Dunedin or any other location out of Germany. I spoke about German soil. But wha do you think if you had to transfer Dunedin to the Fiji islands, with the population deported? Do you really notice, that you're justifying a deportation with genocidical elements? You are arguing like the Nazis.

Adler

Zardnaar, I do not speak about Kiwiana or Dunedin or any other location out of Germany. I spoke about German soil. But wha do you think if you had to transfer Dunedin to the Fiji islands, with the population deported? Do you really notice, that you're justifying a deportation with genocidical elements? You are arguing like the Nazis.

Adler

And what makes, say, Wroclaw, German soil?

What makes it Polish soil?

Adler

If you need a a real good article:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

Erm. I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but the article is almost as vague about the Serbian role as you are. I don't see any mention of Austria's ultimatum and Serbia's response to it. And the writer uses the logic of the unpopular and ineffective American war on terror to explain why Austria had valid reason to go to war. Need I say more?

Nevertheless, I did find something in it that you should read:

So, Princip: Was he a hero?... The Serbian government of 1914, while very sympathetic to his cause, certainly did not approve his methods.

Do you really notice, that you're justifying a deportation with genocidical elements? You are arguing like the Nazis.


Tell me when they have found proof that they put Germans into concentration camps post WW2. Please do not try to compare things that are not comparable.

Yes, there were such camps. Not only some POW camps or gulags, in which inhumane things happened, but also Buchenwald was reopened as Soviet KZ. Also a Genocide does not only exist if there are KZs, but mass killings of populations and so on are part of it. Oh, BTW to compare means not to set something equal. That I never did!
Also ask Varykalkas himself. He will give you some more books.

Adler

Yes, there were such camps. Not only some POW camps or gulags, in which inhumane things happened, but also Buchenwald was reopened as Soviet KZ. Also a Genocide does not only exist if there are KZs, but mass killings of populations and so on are part of it. Oh, BTW to compare means not to set something equal. That I never did!
Also ask Varykalkas himself. He will give you some more books.

Then why don't you write a book about the 'reverse Holocaust'? I'm sure many people would be interested in reading how the Nazi-everybody else persecuted and slaughtered the Germans after WW2. You're beginning to sound xenophobic.

And I see you took the easy way out by citing the Soviets, as if people don't already know that the Soviets were almost as bad as the Nazis. But even they did not apply a systematic ethnic cleansing policy on Germans after WW2.

Soviets did deport 200000 USSR citizens of German ethnicity during the war IIRC. I don't thnk they were slaughtered like the Jews though although the Gulags were bad enough. No Adler it wasn't right what happened but it was the Germans fault. Enough Germans voted for Hitler to let him gain power and Germany started a war of aggression and genocide. I'm sure some deal could have been worked out regarding the Polish corridor and as far as I know ethnic Germans before 1939 weren't systematically persecuted in any large scale. Just because ethnic Germans or whatever live in another country it doesn't give the original country of origin any right to attack the. 10% of New Zealands population lives overseas mostly in London and Australia. They left of there own free will and NZ has no claim over the territories they live in. Not that NZ has the power to do anything about it anyway.

The ethnic Germans living in Czech and Polish lands weren't even citizens of Germany.

Germany tried to conquer Europe and lost (ok, not exactly that, but it was the final goal anyway). Tried again and lost again. And germans complain they got screwed? They were bloody lucky that the victors did not do to them even half what they did to the countries they attacked!

Reading discussions like this one, I have to wonder if that forbearance was perhaps a mistake...

What makes it Polish soil?

Adler

The 650,000 Polish people living there?

Soviets did deport 200000 USSR citizens of German ethnicity during the war IIRC. I don't thnk they were slaughtered like the Jews though although the Gulags were bad enough. No Adler it wasn't right what happened but it was the Germans fault. Enough Germans voted for Hitler to let him gain power and Germany started a war of aggression and genocide. I'm sure some deal could have been worked out regarding the Polish corridor and as far as I know ethnic Germans before 1939 weren't systematically persecuted in any large scale. Just because ethnic Germans or whatever live in another country it doesn't give the original country of origin any right to attack the. 10% of New Zealands population lives overseas mostly in London and Australia. They left of there own free will and NZ has no claim over the territories they live in. Not that NZ has the power to do anything about it anyway.

The problem is Adler is comparing people who argue against him with Nazis and making the persecution of Germans post WW1 and 2 seem like some sort of a Holocaust-style pogrom. That's nonsense. The Western powers were not interested in wiping the Germans off the face of the earth. Not even the Soviets tried that seriously (very different from the Nazis). The Allies wanted Germany weakened to the point that it could no longer wage wars of aggression, and Germany has itself to blame more than anything else for that.

@ warpus: That are facts, but no justifications per se.

@ aelf: Sure, nobody wanted to exterminate all Germans. But for a genocide this is not neccassary. The Holocaust was the most extreme form. Also I said the deportations had genocidical elements. Not more or less. Killing persons only because of his or her origin to get rid about that population part is fulfilling the genonocide crime. The Germans were deported. Over 2 million people died during the deportations 1944-1947 (and partly later). So yes partially there were genocidical elements in the deportations (which is btw the worst crime after genocide).
Also the sayings: "That Germans deserved it" is the same saying as "The Jews deserved it." The only ones who really deserved it were Hitler and his gang members. These argumentations by some here are very Nazi like (that was not against you).

Adler

@Zardnaar: You're completely right abot Germans in New Zealand and Dutch in America or Chinese in Italy. But you are not right concerning Germans in Germany. That's the same as Fiji annecting Auckland and deport the people there. Of these 200.000 Stalin let deport to the USSR only very few came back. However as I said that's why it had genocidal elements. Of course it is not the same as the Holocaust. But does that mean it wasn't a huge crime? No, as you admitted.

Adler

@ warpus: That are facts, but no justifications per se.

I don't believe you're familiar with the explosive power of 650,000 Poles. 650,000 Poles can make things very very Polish ;)

Also the sayings: "That Germans deserved it" is the same saying as "The Jews deserved it."

Please tell me, when did the jews take part in genocide attempts againt the germans (I'm not talking about today's jews and a certain other people, of course)? You can't paint the culprits (yes, the germans, most of whom tolerated or even supported the nazi party!) the same color as the victims. Either you are very deluded, or you believe the 1930's nazi propaganda about the evil jews...

Sure, nobody wanted to exterminate all Germans. But for a genocide this is not neccassary. The Holocaust was the most extreme form. Also I said the deportations had genocidical elements. Not more or less. Killing persons only because of his or her origin to get rid about that population part is fulfilling the genonocide crime. The Germans were deported. Over 2 million people died during the deportations 1944-1947 (and partly later). So yes partially there were genocidical elements in the deportations (which is btw the worst crime after genocide).
Also the sayings: "That Germans deserved it" is the same saying as "The Jews deserved it." The only ones who really deserved it were Hitler and his gang members. These argumentations by some here are very Nazi like (that was not against you).

I didn't say that everybody else was completely innocent, or that it's right to treat the Germans that way. But after suffering so much at the hands of the Germans, although that doesn't justify anything from a moral standpoint, I can understand why some people hated them.

And I believe that Germany was aggressive in and before both World Wars, and that there is strong basis for this commonly accepted view. Although I admire him, I think you have Bismark to thank for setting the scene for these disasters. The policies he pursued that led to the creation of the German Empire left some fatal loose ends, which required a strong statesman like him to manage. And, ironically, it was his support for the office of the king that eventually caused him to be driven out of office, leaving power in the hands of an incompetent man who was incapable of handling the delicate situation in Europe. Of course, there was also the Prussian General Staff, which certainly did not help. Strictly speaking, the German people didn't deserve to shoulder the blame (I believe they were misled both times), but I guess they had to pay the price as pawns of their belligerent leaders.

German miltarism probably has its origins in Fredericks day. Deporting the Germans wasn't fair but Adler you seem to fail to grap how unpopular Germans were in the post war years due to their actions.

No, I do see it. But that is still no justification! They were innocent. To fight that system Hitler built up you need more than most people have (unfortunately). To say they are guilty by supporting him or not opposing him is not true (for the first to a certain extent). The young people were believing him and were betrayed, the poor people, dito, the (few) rich people electing him, dito. Only the small band of radical antisemites and other scum is guilty. Or I can say all Chinese living under Mao were guilty. Or all Russians under Stalin. That can not be.
Aelf, Bismarck had no other choice in uniting Germany. All three wars had to be lead. Show me another possibility, where he could have evaded the wars.
Also Prussia/ Germany was not more militaristic as the other nations. Also Prussia/ Germany was only involed in 8% of all wars since 1815 to 1945. France in 33% (due to a US study I do not have at hand just now). Of all main powers Germany lead the fewest wars.

Adler

I'm not saying it justifys it but it explains it. Germans come into your countrie and kill, butcher, maim deport your friends and then they retreat leaving behind Germans in your land. Revenge is just a natural human emotion. Ethnic Germans in occupied Europe were treated alot better than the locals.

Yes, but an explanation does not justify it though. It makes it not right.

Adler

Aelf, Bismarck had no other choice in uniting Germany. All three wars had to be lead. Show me another possibility, where he could have evaded the wars.

He clearly did provoke the Franco-Prussian War (Ems Telegram). His aim was to unify Germany and then create a European peace, not knowing that the two might prove to be incompatible.

Also Prussia/ Germany was not more militaristic as the other nations. Also Prussia/ Germany was only involed in 8% of all wars since 1815 to 1945. France in 33% (due to a US study I do not have at hand just now). Of all main powers Germany lead the fewest wars.

So what? In the two World Wars, which we are talking about here, Germany was the aggressor.

Yes, but an explanation does not justify it though. It makes it not right.

Adler


Probably but tis a bit klate to do anything about it now and its a can of worms that should stay shut.

@ Aelf: Please read Guns of August. Then we can discuss further.
Yes, Bismarck wanted the war with France to get rid about the French opposition against the unification. And I do not see any valid reason why the French would oppose that. If the Lithunians and Polish (re)unite Germany can also do nothing.

Adler

And I do not see any valid reason why the French would oppose that
Two world war against an unified Germany, with twice the population of France, proved a valid reason.

Yes, Bismarck wanted the war with France to get rid about the French opposition against the unification. And I do not see any valid reason why the French would oppose that. If the Lithunians and Polish (re)unite Germany can also do nothing.

Yes, I'm sure Germany would just let that happen. It didn't even allow Czechoslovakia to exist. Valid reason is not something that a sympathiser of the Second and Third Reichs can use in debate.

Anyway, Bismarck needed the war to win the support of the other German states for a formalised union. It's the usual method of winning support by creating a (dangerous) enemy. So it wasn't just because he needed to remove French opposition.

Well, since this thread became a battleground between a German (Adler17) and the rest of the world, I think I have to reemphasize my point of view.

I am german, too, just like Adler17. But I disagree with 99% of his beliefs and "proofs". And most other germans do so. Reading through this thread from the beginning (again), it is clear to me that his historical picture can best be discribed as revanchistic.

As I already tried to explain in my previous postings, there were some interesting reasons why a civilized country like Germany was unified with blood and became a dictatorship and slaughterhouse. But most of Adler17's arguments and examples remind me of propaganda . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . taken from Neo-Nazi pamphlets nowadays. Claiming back parts of Poland in 2007? Adler17, you're the only one screwed up here! :mad:

I can only hope, that guys like Adler17 are not seen as "The Germans in 2007" from the rest of the world. :blush:

Well, since this thread became a battleground between a German (Adler17) and the rest of the world, I think I have to reemphasize my point of view.

I am german, too, just like Adler17. But I disagree with 99% of his beliefs and "proofs". And most other germans do so. Reading through this thread from the beginning (again), it is clear to me that his historical picture can best be discribed as revanchistic.

As I already tried to explain in my previous postings, there were some interesting reasons why a civilized country like Germany was unified with blood and became a dictatorship and slaughterhouse. But most of Adler17's arguments and examples remind me of propaganda . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . taken from Neo-Nazi pamphlets nowadays. Claiming back parts of Poland in 2007? Adler17, you're the only one screwed up here! :mad:

I can only hope, that guys like Adler17 are not seen as "The Germans in 2007" from the rest of the world. :blush:

I really respect you for that.

Can I add that the history of any nation becomes distorted when viewed from an ethnocentric perspective. This is why I suspect little progress is being made in this thread.

It’s good to know Adler17 is not representative of most germans. The kind of talk I was seeing here was beginning to scare me.

Well, to give you an impression what most Germans think of Nazis, here's a small collection of funny movies. All of them in German but yet funny to watch:


Little Hitler gets his sweeties (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/80087)

Taken from Spiegel TV, one of the most renowned TV magazines in Germany (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/103303)

A quite weird advertisement about how to support Neo Nazis - starting after 20 secs (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/34770)

Trailer of a german comedy in 2006. Basically the first german comedy about Hitler after WWII! (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/408239)

Trailer for a cartoon 2006 (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/63005)

:p Well, to give you an impression what most Germans think of Nazis, here's a small collection of funny movies. All of them in German but yet funny to watch:


Little Hitler gets his sweeties (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/80087)

Taken from Spiegel TV, one of the most renowned TV magazines in Germany (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/103303)

A quite weird advertisement about how to support Neo Nazis - starting after 20 secs (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/34770)

Trailer of a german comedy in 2006. Basically the first german comedy about Hitler after WWII! (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/408239)

Trailer for a cartoon 2006 (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/63005)

Germans have comedy:p Didn't understand the audio so I didn't find it funny.

:p

Germans have comedy:p Didn't understand the audio so I didn't find it funny.

It would be a lot of work to dub this stuff. Believe me - this is german humor at it's best. Doesn't mean, it's funny on an international level. ;)

It’s good to know Adler17 is not representative of most germans. The kind of talk I was seeing here was beginning to scare me.

Same here.

Steve, would there have been world wars if Bismarck failed? Yes. I think the mess on the Balcan would have lead to another world war with perhaps other coalitions. WW1 was not directly programmed with the foundering of Germany but a united Germany was no longer a ball in the game of the European powers but a player.

@ aelf: Please be fair and say that only Hitler dissolved Chechoslovakia. Germany had no problems before him with that country.
Also concerning the history with France (until Adenauer and De Gaulle) Bismarck did not need to create such an enemy. Only a few years before the French demanded the Rhine territories from Germany. And France even offered help to Prussia in the German War of 1866 in exchange for Belgium and some of that areas. So no, France was a danger. That he used it, well, he was a politician. Indeed Bismarck tried also with France everything to have a fast victory. But after Sedan, when the French decided to continue the fights, he could not longer escape them with only the fall of opposition against the German unification. Considering the demands and proposals which were given to him later and in contrast to Tilsit the peace was still mild. The British even asked Bismarck to take over the fleet and as much as colonies as possible, too. No the war with France was not a mistake nor a catastrophe for Europe.

@ Raki: I am no such a nazi bastard. Please stop these flamings. With that brown **** I do have nothing in common. I also do not flame you being a godless communist.

@Zarnaar:
Perhaps that is better:
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/227823

And the (slightly worse) English version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KufHGYKqH9E

Adler

Steve, would there have been world wars if Bismarck failed? Yes. I think the mess on the Balcan would have lead to another world war with perhaps other coali