Germany got screwed? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

willemvanoranje

Mar 05, 2007, 04:59 AM

Well I realize any attempt to get Germany's rightly owned lands back will immediatley be shot down by @$$holes who think its Nazism. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt Russia control Konigsberg, or w/e its called now? Theres no way in hell they'll get that back if so, Russia wouldnt give up a port over there. But now I'm thinking if, over the decades, the majority has changed, if Germans are still the most populous in these places. If so, than, sorry Poland, but thats Deutsch. I don't mean to be rude, and I dont want war, I want justice and jesus christ! If its german territory, than it should be German. god i sound like hitler, sorry...

Nowadays Germany has nothing to look for in those areas. Take the Königsberg area, now Kaliningrad. There are almost no Germans left. Many left during the Russian siege, others right after it, and others were just killed and raped (not necessarily in that order). The now Polish parts and Sudetenland do not have many Germans anymore either. Most of them ran from the Russians or were evicted by the Poles and Czech. If I remember correctly, a total of about 15 million people was displaced because of this. Most of them moved into Germany. So, nowadays, there is no reason to give those territories back. Besides, Germany confirmed those borders by treaty.

LDeska

Mar 05, 2007, 09:45 AM

What a nazi crap here! Probably in Germany you could be judged for claiming such things!
Thinking this way would lead us to new war.
What is making me feel better is that you do not live in Germany, only in US and you're far away from Europe.

To be correct: Prussians were separated ethnic group, they had nothing to do with Slavians. Polish prince Konrad Mazowiecki invited German Teutonic Order to those areas to fight Prussians - they were pagans, so such Order was keen to bring Christianity there (with sword - strange idea, but that's how it worked then). This Order grew and finally started to pose a threat to Poland (later to Commonwealth, when Poland and Lithuania formed an union). Order lost wars with Commonwealth in XV century and ceased to be a threat. Then it was secularized into Prussia.
In 1945 lands of Prussia was taken by Russians, slices were given to Poland and Lithuania. Today there is no Germans there as they were expelled right after the war.
About other parts of Germany which are now in Polish borders - first of all we, Poles would like to keep our pre-war borders, we lost many historical cities in the east and literally millions of Poles were expelled by Russians from there and forced to move into new lands.
Last thing - about historically German lands - what is ironic it that those lands which we gained in 1945 were Polish long times ago. In the time when Poland was formed - in X century Wrocław (Breslau) and almost whole territory that is now Polish was then Polish. For centuries Poland shifted east and when in 1945 Russians, Americans and English draw a map of Europe once again, Poland was shaped in almost the same way as it looked like over 1000 years ago, when it emerged.
So, thinking in your way, we get what was ours :) (at least that was the official, communistic propaganda after WW2).

sydhe

Mar 05, 2007, 09:55 AM

The Germans were expelled from those regions after World War II. When you consider that Hitler used the German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia as an excuse to invade his neighbors, you can understand why they got expelled. It was Stalin, not Khrushchev, who was mostly responsible for it.

And when you consider what happened to certain minority groups under German occupation...

Adler17

Mar 05, 2007, 10:00 AM

Okay to say something of the situation and to confirm the prejudice I am a flaming nationalist (NOT NAZI), although I am not, I have to say some things.

1. The areas east of the Oder and Neiße rivers were German since Medievel times. The Slavic and Baltic tribes living there were assimilated. Indeed only the Sorbs and Kashubs (and the Masurs) kept at least partly their traditions. The Sorbs living west of the border and are excluded here. Although having Polish attempts to control these areas they were not successful. However in the time of 1919 the population was mostly German. Also many Polish at least in Upper Silesia voted to stay German citizens. That is only a small overview about the ethnical population structure in 1919.

2. Deportation of people (not speaking about killing and raping) is a crime against humanity and only a genocide is worse (and indeed the deportation had genocidical elements). Also EU and UN did never accept that and demand the return of the displaced persons.

3. Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned. In how far it is debated (like nearly everything in law) though. Most of the lawyers nevertheless do not accept annexions in any case.

4. Germany could have accepted the border at last in 1991 with the treaty with Poland. But there are two problems: Once that a ban of annexions has to be either totally, so that the acceptance must be void, so that the annexing party can never be sure about the situation and has no rights doing so (except perhaps they have older rights, which in this case did not exist). So the treaty can only accept the status quo ante, meaning these areas are still German but only governed by Poland and Russia.
The second problem is that Germany did not reunite the way the German constitution thought. Indeed the Basic Law, our constitution here in Germany, was only made for the Bundesrepublik. But after 1990 there is still another German state existing: The German Reich! The Reich is still existing, but it is "out of order" since 1945. The Constitution of 1945 was never put out of action. Only the organs are not active (and that is one thing not debated in law circles). In how far the Bundesrepublik could act as or for the Reich is debated. It is clear it can accept payments or artifacts of the Reich. Also it can pay some old depts, but to accept a treaty loosing 1/4th of the territory is very questionable. The Reich could have done so, but indeed the Reich was never dissolved (Only Prussia was dissolved, but that is IMO also void, not only for making a historial idiocy but the occupation states were never allowed doing so! But that is another topic).
Thus the treaty with Poland is able to be debated.

The Chech Republic has much better chances, as the Sudeten were never a part of Germany from 1867 to 1938. Although here the right of self determination was not accepted in 1919.

At last: I am very sorry for the crimes Germans did in Poland, the Chech republic and the Soviet union. But these crimes do not justify the crimes done later by the victors.

Adler

Adler17

Mar 05, 2007, 10:05 AM

LDeska: The Poles had lost the control over Silesia and East Pommerania soon after, so that is not true. And to say all, who want the areas back are Nazis is an offence. However I agree that Poland should also got their territories lost after ww2, as far as there were mostly Poles living) back.

Adler

Tank_Guy#3

Mar 05, 2007, 10:16 AM

Of course they did, but recently I've been thinking, Germany lost more than it should of, land-wise, at the end of WWII then I think it deserved, so I'm bringing this up to debate to see if there's any truth behind this. Examples: Danzig, Stettin, Pressburg, Konigsberg, Breslau, and the regions surrounding them, you know, those good old Prussian lands, I'm no nazi but if terratories belong to a certain culture, why are they given to another? To me, Germany deserved those lands, and really theres no way to get them back without starting WWIII. So there you go, wtf mates?

The Polish Corridor didn't work (keeping Danzig German), while I agree that many of the lands that were taken, shouldn't have been, I think it's a little late to ask for them back now.

And what about all the lands taken from Poland by both the Russians and the Germans (pre-World War I)? They had amassed a sizeable empire before they got screwed over. I'm talking (of course) about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Many major empires have had land that is rightfully theirs taken away at one point or another. This is just one more example.

kittenOFchaos

Mar 05, 2007, 11:41 AM

Of course they did, but recently I've been thinking, Germany lost more than it should of, land-wise, at the end of WWII then I think it deserved, so I'm bringing this up to debate to see if there's any truth behind this. Examples: Danzig, Stettin, Pressburg, Konigsberg, Breslau, and the regions surrounding them, you know, those good old Prussian lands, I'm no nazi but if terratories belong to a certain culture, why are they given to another? To me, Germany deserved those lands, and really theres no way to get them back without starting WWIII. So there you go, wtf mates?

Germany deserved all it got and more for WWI and WWII having caused more misery than nearly any other country or people in history. It worries me that we've Germans in this thread thinking Germany got a raw deal after WW2.

Stolen Rutters

Mar 05, 2007, 12:06 PM

Norseone

Mar 05, 2007, 01:11 PM

Yep. Losers in war tend to get screwed. It's actually the whole point of starting a war, to screw someone over for your benefit. Considering that the Germans actually started WWII and lost, I am honestly surprised so many Germans survived, and that they kept what they did.

I guess I'm more surprised by the level of mercy they were given once it became clear what was really happening within the Reich.

Killing off the Germans would have been a larger genocide than that which was perpetrated by the Nazi's, so I am not suprised many germans survived. Also, Mercy was shown? half the country was occupied by Russia for many years.

Commy

Mar 05, 2007, 01:40 PM

besides, I understand the Ukranians lived in crimea before Russians did ;)

EDIT: correct me if i'm wrong
I'll correct you. Crimea was a territory of Crimea khanate (satellite of Ottoman empire). It Crimea khanate had very agressive foreign policy and often its forces invaded Russia. In 1783 Catherine II the Great conquered Crimea. From that moment to 1950-s or 1960-s Crimea was a part of Russian Empire/RSFSR/USSR.
In 1950-s Khruschov took Crimea from Russian SFSR (Russia) and gave it to Ukranian SSR (Ukraine). Crimea was a Soviet territory before and after that, but from this moment it was admimnistratively a part of Ukraine.
I think this act was illegal, but it is problem of foreign policy, not law
It's because the Russians were so greedy and took parts of Poland
It's because Polishes were so greedy and took parts of Russia under the crush of Russian empire
Indeed

you should be thanking the Lord for that unusually cold weather
All 4 years of Eastern campaign was winter? :lol:
BTW, during battle for Moscow weather was not too cold.

PS One interesting fact: during 7-years war in 18-th century Russians conquered Koenigsberg. One of the first Germans who oathed the Russia was famous philosoph Immanuil Kant (sorry, but I don't know how correctly write his name in English). Russian forces conquered even Berlin :crazyeye: . Key from it is now in Isaac cathedral in St-Petersburg.

Mirc

Mar 05, 2007, 02:18 PM

I actually agree Germany got screwed much more than it deserved. Unfortunately, central and eastern Europe have still a lot of problematic territories, countries with these troubles are: Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ukraine, Poland, also my country, Romania, and Moldova, which is an artificial country. A lot would be needed to give everyone the territory the rightfully deserve.

West 36

Mar 05, 2007, 02:54 PM

complications complications.. I dont like this talk that sounds like Germany wasn't screwed quite enough. 2 things: not every german was murdering other people and does the fact that the Nazis were such jackasses allow the victorious nations to rape and pillage Germany in return?
And you must understand, I am a bit nationalist, as in I am proud of the mutt I am and feel cultures should be able to rule themselves- ex. India shouldn't be ruled by England, Iraq by U.S. etc. I'm also a bit socialist in that I feel people are equal, I don't feel superior to other countries, you know, peace is best, always. Those lands were german, they were screwed, but it does seem too late for change now... sadly.
hmm. i'm a bit nationalist. i'm a bit socialist. I'm a national socialist... interesting.

sabo

Mar 05, 2007, 03:21 PM

Yep. Losers in war tend to get screwed. It's actually the whole point of starting a war, to screw someone over for your benefit. Considering that the Germans actually started WWII and lost, I am honestly surprised so many Germans survived, and that they kept what they did.

I guess I'm more surprised by the level of mercy they were given once it became clear what was really happening within the Reich.

I agree, I have not heard of a country that has started a war and lost and actually gained territory. There may have been "cease fires" and case of countries joining a losing side but I've never heard of a country starting a war, losing the war, and gaining territory. Like the old saying "the spoils of war"

smalltalk

Mar 05, 2007, 03:30 PM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:p

s.c.dude

Mar 05, 2007, 03:49 PM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:phow dare you bring that up:mischief:

Tortosa

Mar 05, 2007, 04:32 PM

Let the locals vote, like the 1935 Saar plebicite (90% in favour of unifying with the Fatherland)

privatehudson

Mar 05, 2007, 04:43 PM

The way Germany was "screwed" at the end of WW2 was very much a product of the way the Nazi war machine fought the war. Hitler intended a war of ideology and conquest and in the end a total war whereby the country would either suceed or die. Between his (and the various nazi leaders) incompetence, calousness, inhumanity and detachment from reality they very nearly managed the latter. They waged a war of destruction on many of their foes and a campaign of genocide on various peoples. Does any of that justify what happened at the end of the war - of course not. But sh*t happens, and if you sow the wind...

What happened to Germany was no more than she could have expected. Even the soldiers knew it, Beevor's Berlin quotes one of them saying something like "If the Russians do to us only half of what we've done to them Germany will cease to exist, so we have to win this war". It was the final throw of the dice for Hitler and his regime, the concept that people would fight the death to avoid a peace which would make them wish they were dead. Unfortunately much of the propaganda and rumours about what would happen if the Soviet army invaded were if not exactly true not very far wrong.

Having said all that these events are nearly 60 years ago now, so any attempt to right the wrongs of WW2 is incredibly difficult. I certainly would not agree with any transfer of land which went against the ethnic background of the majority of the inhabitants.

Germans didn't deserve what happened to them but neither did the Londoners deserve the Blitz, nor the Jews the holocaust or any number of other non combatant victims. In a war people usually don't get what they deserve.

willemvanoranje

Mar 05, 2007, 04:58 PM

It's because Russians were so greedy and took parts of Russia under the crush of Russian empire

Somehow I get the feeling one of the "Russias" used in that sentence was meant to be something else?

Verbose

Mar 05, 2007, 10:47 PM

Germans didn't deserve what happened to them but neither did the Londoners deserve the Blitz, nor the Jews the holocaust or any number of other non combatant victims. In a war people usually don't get what they deserve.
Exactly. War is not providence in disguise.

Adler17

Mar 06, 2007, 12:38 AM

Uhmm, just two words:

unconditional surrender

:p

Does not justify the annexions nor the deportations.

Adler

silver 2039

Mar 06, 2007, 09:44 AM

For all purposes those territories are now Polish, but you can really blame the Russians for that, they took the Western parts of Poland, and compensated the Poles by giving them eastern Germany.

GinandTonic

Mar 06, 2007, 10:16 AM

WW1, Germany was screwed.

The problem with WW2 is that there was nothing that could be done to Germany that could be a reasonable punishment for the scale of their crimes - without being as guilty as they were. Rather the same problem they had with the more grotesque war criminals, how an you punish them in any way that reflects the severity of their crimes? Any punishment is pissing into an ocean.

To complain that after the horrors they inflicted on the world that their country was rebuilt for them minus desputed regions is sickening. The western govs showed incredible restraint and gentility in the light of what had just transpired - at least far in excess of what their publics wished them to.

It is abserd to discuss the situation as if it was a civilised war - it was the greatest crime of the modern world.

Adler17

Mar 06, 2007, 11:26 AM

But the displaced persons were not guilty. There is no collective guilt.
Also indeed the Russians are to blame most but not entirely.

Adler

Verbose

Mar 06, 2007, 11:38 AM

To complain that after the horrors they inflicted on the world that their country was rebuilt for them minus desputed regions is sickening. The western govs showed incredible restraint and gentility in the light of what had just transpired - at least far in excess of what their publics wished them to.
Bolding by me.

Problem is, it's no longer so very recent is it? It's quite a long time ago by now. 67 years and counting. Pretty soon it's going to be a lot longer ago too.

History is funny in the way that it's based on collective amnesia. All nations have to forget more history than anyone can ever remember if they are going to progress and not get hung up on past ill-deeds.

This is specifically true in modern societies (those who consider themselves so). When something become "history" it means it's no longer relevant for day to day affairs and politics.

Germany is in that place right now in every way except the most symbolic.

The ones who might not want to consider the military side of things "history" is mostly the US and UK who have built powerful positive "mythologies" around WWII.

And then there's the Holocaust, to complicate matters further. And everyone agrees, for the time being, that this is an event not permissible to become "just history". And the Germans have done more to foster this attitude among themselves than everyone else.

All in all, we have a bit of a problem deciding what's just "history" (no longer relevant really) and what's "history", as in fundamental assumptions about ourselves and others.

The German defense here is of course that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is true. You cannot however rectify these wrongs without starting up a domino-effect of screwing most of central and eastern Europe all over again.

Instead it will be resolved when people in these countries decide that what's done is done, and has no real relevance for today.

The real issue seems to be if the world is yet willing to acknowledge that Germany historically was anything more than the breeding ground for Nazism? At least that this is the overriding meaning of historical Germany.

At the mo', the Germans seem excited by the possibility of thinking of themselves as people who also suffered and were screwed over by their leadership and events. Most of them were after all. Even WWII Hollywood was very compunctous about separating "Bad Nazis" from "Good Germans".

Still, it is obvioulsy very provocative to face Germans claiming they were wronged too. Otoh there are lots of Germans claiming the defeat of Nazi Germany was their liberation just as much as for say the French.

smalltalk

Mar 06, 2007, 12:48 PM

3. Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned.:chuckles

Didn't stop Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland. Remember Ribbentrop-Molotow-Pact?
The German Reich! The Reich is still existing, but it is "out of order" since 1945. The Constitution of 1945 was never put out of action.1945! :lol:

Actually, the German Reich went "out of order" in 1933.

No, correction. It went down in 1919 when it was replaced by the Weimar Republic.

Your claim is an extremly right wing minority view shared by about 5% of the Germans.

Commy

Mar 06, 2007, 01:59 PM

Somehow I get the feeling one of the "Russias" used in that sentence was meant to be something else?
Yes, I meant Polishes

Sobieski II

Mar 06, 2007, 02:01 PM

I do not think the deportation of Germans was correct. What I think is that considering that the regions are so clearly Polish in every way now, they should remain Polish. How exactly do we define what a sufficient period of time is, before a territory belongs to a different nation?

If we were to take all claims going back 2,000 years, Europe would be entangled in an almost infinite debate.

Out of curiosity, where did most of those dislocated in the east end up? Did they end up going to West Germany, or East Germany? If they ended up in West Germany, I would say Germany is better off now then it would have been if they had kept Prussia. Land is all well and good, but the powerful economy that resulted from having these people in the free West Germany is more important. That doesn't justify the deportations, but it is a silver-lining.

@Adler: Out of curiousity, are you a historian by training? You seem to know a lot about European history.

Sobieski II

Mar 06, 2007, 02:12 PM

Most of them were after all. Even WWII Hollywood was very compunctous about separating "Bad Nazis" from "Good Germans".
A bit off-topic: what is interesting is how this contrasts with how Hollywood, and western society in general viewed the Japanese. The Japanese were considered as a whole to be rotten and deserving of collective guilt much more than the Germans. During WWII the Japanese were probably more hated in America and even Britain than the "Nazis" (like you said, they often didn't even say "German"). Perhaps it is because 23% of Americans are of at least partial German descent.

Still, it is obvioulsy very provocative to face Germans claiming they were wronged too. Otoh there are lots of Germans claiming the defeat of Nazi Germany was their liberation just as much as for say the French.

While it may be true that there were lots of Germans opposed to the Nazis, it should be kept in mind that probably a clear majority of Germans supported the Nazis at the outbreak of the war. This idea should not be exaggerated. The circumstances of the Nazi rise should be taken into account, and it should not be believed that the German nation is in any way unique for falling for such extremism... but to pretend the German nation as a whole was largely on the allied side is not true. Maybe by 1944 or 45, but not before.

Nylan

Mar 06, 2007, 03:25 PM

Well I realize any attempt to get Germany's rightly owned lands back will immediatley be shot down by @$$holes who think its Nazism.

What a nazi crap here! Probably in Germany you could be judged for claiming such things!
Thinking this way would lead us to new war.

Thanks for proving West 36's point LDeska. Clever debate tactics there.

The whole point is that Germany got screwed and it would be nice if it had never happened. Can't we be justified in our unhappiness?

we're not planning an invasion! :crazyeye:

calm down, will you

Sobieski II

Mar 06, 2007, 03:51 PM

Nylan, if you really want to tally up the "got screwed" score from WWII, Germany owes the Soviet Union about 10 million more dead Germans.

Perhaps Poland would like their 6 million people back as well.

Germany may have lost 6 million people, but it pales in comparison to the rest of the damage done by the Germans. Territory isn't the only way to measure loss.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if Germany is going to complain about how it was treated in WWII, then it should be free reign for every other country to complain about MUCH worse. Best course of action would be to just let bygones be bygones.

Nylan

Mar 06, 2007, 04:07 PM

Tally up the number of Russians Stalin himself had killed

THEN we'll talk about what Germany did to Russia

I'm not even going to start on why screwing over Germany after WWI helped the rise of Hitler in the first place

but then again, Adler and I are the only ones that don't buy the anti-German kill the Nazis propaganda. Or at least it seems that way.

GinandTonic

Mar 06, 2007, 05:06 PM

West 36

Mar 06, 2007, 09:35 PM

A bit off-topic: what is interesting is how this contrasts with how Hollywood, and western society in general viewed the Japanese. The Japanese were considered as a whole to be rotten and deserving of collective guilt much more than the Germans. During WWII the Japanese were probably more hated in America and even Britain than the "Nazis" (like you said, they often didn't even say "German"). Perhaps it is because 23% of Americans are of at least partial German descent.Ok, well heres the brutal honesty: Majority of American is white, and when given two enemies, one white, one asian, some sort of racism, whether consciously or not, will provoke the people to be lighter on the Germans. Hell, this is the 40's, the prejudice would be right out, they were different, foreign, much easier to victimize and so it would have been easier to hate them. And as far as we are still being taught, German citizens didnt all support the cause, Japanese citizens were all ready to fight to the death, so the books say, true or not. honestly, I would probably feel the same way, and I'm not racist, its just there.

While it may be true that there were lots of Germans opposed to the Nazis, it should be kept in mind that probably a clear majority of Germans supported the Nazis at the outbreak of the war. This idea should not be exaggerated. The circumstances of the Nazi rise should be taken into account, and it should not be believed that the German nation is in any way unique for falling for such extremism... but to pretend the German nation as a whole was largely on the allied side is not true. Maybe by 1944 or 45, but not before.
Ok, its the 40's, be for all this political correctness B.S. and you hear this: "Our country is noble and right! You belong to the greatest race on the earth! Our people have a great history. Truely we are the master race" ok, I suck at propaganda, oh well, but hearing this would motivate you in some way. I am white and now with it being ok to insult whites, but not for whites to insult others, i get a little pissed, thinking up things like "hey! we counqured the majority of the world, and most likley, YOUR people!!!" but that would never fly.. but when I'm saying is, when you are provoked and your mind is stimulated in thinking that you're better than others, you'll like it, and may even latch on to that a bit. The Germans may not all have been nazis, but I can assure you many were damn proud to be German as it took Europe.
I'm only an 8th German, and still I feel a bit pride when I think these guys, after being united for what, only 40 years, almost take Europe twice. If only they hadnt disintegrated in the middle ages, who knows what empires may have been forged... we took Rome remember? ah yeah... I'm a quarter Austrian too, I'm entitled to a little of this.

Gabryel Karolin

Mar 06, 2007, 11:48 PM

But the displaced persons were not guilty. There is no collective guilt.

This. Ordinary people had their property confiscated and were forceably removed from their ancestral homelands. The fact that the Germans had the same plans for Eastern Europe (Lebensraum) doesn't make it right to do it to them. In "we only do to them what they had planned for us" any claims of moral highground is lost. Again, these were ordinary people, their only crime was being German.

Also the logic that since mostly Polish/Russians live in those territories now there is nothing to do about it rings a bit false in my ears. What if for example there was a mass influx of Chinese in occupied Tibet, so much that they became the majority? It would now legally and moraly be Chinese?

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 01:14 AM

Good post Gabryel.

@smalltalk: I gave a hint on the legal point of view concerning the German Reich, which was the name of Germany before 1945. If a nation is occupied by another this nation does not cease to exist, although her organs might be not working.
Also my general political point of view is much more in the center as you might believe.

@ Sobieasky: History is something I love and indeed I thought about studying history. But as it is a bit diffucult to get a good job there it remains only my hobby.
Are they Polish now? They are inhabited (mostly) by Poles and Russians indeed. But that is not allowed to be an acception for an annexion. Also remember the French demanded back the Alsace in 1919 although having lost it in 1871.
Also the Germans did support that Austrian due to "his" successes fighting the problems. Also they were in no way belligerent or enthusiastic to go for war in 1939. Hitler had massive problems to get the population behind him for that. Again in 1940 he had the support from nearly all Germans (including Jews and communists) at least partly for his victory over France. But then the war continued and with the attack on Russia his star was sinking. When it became critical for him another thing happened: The British attacked the German civil population with their bomber. That gave Hitler another boost. Also many were afraid about the dictatorship. One whisper joke about the time is really showing the situation:
Berlin is burning by another British attack. Hitler and Göring are standing on a tower and see the city burning. Hitler is desperate. He says: "My poor people of Berlin. Göring, what can I do to make the people happy again?" "Well, that's quite easy. Jump from the tower!"
Also do not forget that the opposition tried to kill Hitler since 1938!

@ West 36: My Great grand father was a man being in the social democratic party for his life, even when the party was banned. He was ever proud to be a German. But being an official in the Social administration of Hamburg he got to know what was happening. So he smuggled Jews out of Hamburg in the nights. He had ties to the German resistance as well. Later he had to stop his actions as one neighbour, a strong nazi, heard him listening BBC. Only because his wife and my great grand mother were close friends they were able to persuade him not to go to the Gestapo. But having wife and children he had to abandon his works for the resistance. He was not a help anymore though as he was somewhat "burnt". Being a German and to be proud of it is not the same like being a nazi. IMO only one being no nazi can say correctly to be proud to be a German.

Adler

Verbose

Mar 07, 2007, 01:59 AM

Also remember the French demanded back the Alsace in 1919 although having lost it in 1871.
But they didn't get until the Alsatians voted in favour of France in a referendum.

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 03:01 AM

Big can of worms there. Germay didn't get screwed. By rights the Allies should have marched the population into the Rhin and Elbe and machine gunned the lot of them.

As brutal as the Russians were I always thought they were somewhat restrained given what the troops had been through and what they had seen in the territories they liberated in the U.S.S.R. It sucks for the individual Germans involved but Germany still exists. Compared to the German occupations Germany got off lightly. 2 wrongs don't make a right but if you hit me in the face I'll punch you back harder (hopefully). Multiply that to the level of a nation state and add guns.

The real point is that Germany still exists. Poland didn't under German occupation and I'm sure we all know German policies regarding a defeated U.S.S.R.

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 03:56 AM

But they didn't get until the Alsatians voted in favour of France in a referendum.

Sorry to interject here for a moment but when I first read this I found it quite amusing. In Britain an alsatian is a type of dog - also known as a German Shepard. Whilst I know what you meant my sleep deprived mind had some strange images passing through it for a moment :D

As brutal as the Russians were I always thought they were somewhat restrained given what the troops had been through and what they had seen in the territories they liberated in the U.S.S.R. It sucks for the individual Germans involved but Germany still exists. Compared to the German occupations Germany got off lightly. 2 wrongs don't make a right but if you hit me in the face I'll punch you back harder (hopefully). Multiply that to the level of a nation state and add guns

Well I've been thinking and the problem with that argument is that if you study the way the Soviet army behaved in Germany and Poland its perfectly clear that revenge was only a part of their motivation. A great deal of their army by then came from areas in Russia that had never been invaded by the Germans so had no great grievance with them. Also evidence shows that (for example) it wasn't just German women who were raped, quite often Poles, Czechs and sometimes even liberated Russian female civilians became targets. Throw in the inherent calousness of the soviet state (many "liberated" POWs ended up in Gulags or similar) and you can see that whilst there was some sense of revenge crimes like the rapes derived more from the lack of control exerted by the military authorities on their soldiers.

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 04:34 AM

Steph

Mar 07, 2007, 04:51 AM

Germany has a long history of being screwed over by the rest of Europe. 100 years war
Can you clarify how the rest of Europe screwed Germany during the 100 years war?

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 05:02 AM

That's exactly the position of the Nazis.

Adler

Except when the German soldiers marched into France, Poland, Russia etc the armed forces of those countries had done very little to Germany at large. Early Wehrmacht units were treated as liberators in many areas of the USSR until German behaviour turned the locals against them. Soviet tropps entering Germany in 44/45 had traveled trough Poland and the USSR and had seen the concentration camps, what was left of Warsaw/Kiev. Mercy and compassion probably weren't high priorities. Of course the Soviet troops were brutal but they were a product of the German invasion. The Germans only had themselves to blame for starting a war of naked aggression, expansion and extermination.

Our modern government is paying money to tribal groups here (the Maori) for acts commited in the 1800's by the colonial British government. How much money did Germany pay Poland and Russia last year for war reparations? Around about $0 at a rough guess. Germany's debt to eastern europe can never really be repaid. The modern German is innocent of crimes commited by the nazi regime but eastern europe is still coping with the aftermath of Hitlers decision to invade the USSR in 41.

Germany is still one of the richest countries in the world and got off lightly for the acts of the government 1939-45.

Mirc

Mar 07, 2007, 05:37 AM

Our modern government is paying money to tribal groups here (the Maori) for acts commited in the 1800's by the colonial British government. How much money did Germany pay Poland and Russia last year for war reparations? Around about $0 at a rough guess. Germany's debt to eastern europe can never really be repaid. The modern German is innocent of crimes commited by the nazi regime but eastern europe is still coping with the aftermath of Hitlers decision to invade the USSR in 41.

Germany's debt to Eastern Europe can never be repaid? :dubious: It might surprise you, but Russia is the country that damaged Eastern Europe. How about Russia's debt? It's like, 10 times bigger. Russia after WW2 was a much more criminal state than any other country in the world, in the whole XXth century, maybe only competing with Cambodia or China.

Germany is still one of the richest countries in the world and got off lightly for the acts of the government 1939-45.

You know, you should admire that Germany is one of the richest countries in the world. The use of the word "still" makes me realize you probably think Germany was rich since the end of WW2. Well, that's not true at all. In how many parts was Germany divided? How rich was Germany after WW2? It's only their merit that they are rich now. They did what no Eastern European country managed: rise again from its ashes. They had a REALLY bad period, and saying they got off lightly shows how much you know about recent history.

Bad Player

Mar 07, 2007, 05:46 AM

Given how crazy left wing liberal Germany is at the moment perhaps it's better for those folk to stay with the Polish or someone who are more conservative! :p

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 05:50 AM

You can still blame Germany for Russia occupation of eastern Europe. You can play the blame game all day long but that why I think the status quo is the way to go. Germany lost territory 62 years ago as a consequence of a war they started. If the German troops ha stayed at home no rampaging Soviet troops would have entered Germany, no Soviet occupation of eastern Europe and I'm sure some deal could have been worked out about the Danzig corridor-ie Germany pays Poland for transit rights or something.

Wars have a habit of snowballing or unintended side effects (such as Iraq now).

Sobieski II

Mar 07, 2007, 07:28 AM

Also do not forget that the opposition tried to kill Hitler since 1938!

Well, ETA have killed Spaniards many a time, yet I would hardly say they represent most of Spain. You are right that there was significant opposition to Nazism in Germany, and perhaps the Allies could have had a slightly easier time if they made better use of the German resistence.

But to characterize the German population as being just as against the Nazis as say, the French, before later in the war when it was obvious the Germans were going to lose, is wrong.

As for the annexed lands, I think enough time has past, and the lands are so integrated into the Polish state and nation that any referendum on which state to belong to would keep the area Polish. Let's put it this way. If Germany tagged on that land, their population would rise by probably 15 million, but their German population would remain almost constant.

However, I think the important lesson is like Verbose was saying. Eventually history has to be treated as not relevant to the present, and people should move on.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 08:39 AM

@GinandTonic - I totally agree. After all that happened in my country, Germany was treated really gently. It's impossible for me to imagine: when they invaded us they wanted to kill every single Pole (that was official policy of German state then). Now they complain that they were treated badly after war... I miss words to describe how senseless it is.
@Commy - in English it is "Poles", not "Polishes" :) Soviet Union lost war with Poland in 1920 - territories which were seized by Poland were simply regained - that was how Poland looked like in 1790, before partitions... take a look at map:
I Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Rzeczpospolita.png
II Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:RzeczpospolitaII.png
and now: III Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:LocationPoland.png
@Adler17 - "Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned." Ribbentrop-Molotov - you remember? So you should modify this point to
"Annexions are not accepted in International Law since 1919. They are banned unless Germany _is_ annexing".
Concerning your grand father - you agree that this is an exception, there was practically no resistance in Germany, almost all Germans supported Hitler and millions of them were fighting and killing innocent and defenseless civlians in whole Europe. Come to Warsaw and try to find at least one street here without a plate saying 'Here Germans shoot 300 civilians' or something similiar. Then visit Auschwitz and then we may start to talk if Gemrany 'got screwed'
The truth is that it was Poland that lost most in this war. We had our state which was democratic (at least much more democratic than our neighbours), capitalistic and our economy was starting to improve (taking into consideration 123 years of Russian-German-Austrian occupation). We were the first one to be invaded, our soldiers fought on every front of that war in Europe and many outside of Europe, from RAF and Battle for Britain, invasion of Netherlands, of Italy, Africa, Middle East. 6 millions of Poles were executed or died in fight and what we get after all those sacrifices? We were given as an artifact to Stalin and get 45 years of communistic regime with a HQ in Moscow... and you say that you were screwed up? At least more than half of Germany was in the 'free world' and became an economic power house, which we coul be by now as well. Instead of that, we are only now trying to rebuild our economy almost from scratch.

REDY

Mar 07, 2007, 09:04 AM

Given how crazy left wing liberal Germany is at the moment perhaps it's better for those folk to stay with the Polish or someone who are more conservative! :p

Hmm Polish government is realy crap and reflects Polish strangeness.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 09:27 AM

I agree that today's Polish government is really crap - I'm also really frustrated about it. But keep in mind that they won by very narrow margin with Civic Platform, which are totally different. They took two small parties and are a reason for us to be ashamed... What is optimistic is that even this conservative and nationalistic government is keeping the main direction - EU and NATO, free market, freedom of speech etc.
People start to be fed up with our government and hopefully soon they will quit. One more thing - if you would check the type of people who voted for current government you would see that they were chosen by older people and people from countryside. Young people and people living in cities mostly voted for Civic Platform, which is also a right-wing party, but not nationalistic, only liberal (as opposed to social PiS which is in power now).
Tell me REDY what has this to do with the topic 'Germany got screwed?' ???

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 09:28 AM

Zardnaar, concerning Stalin's plans nothing is sure. Anyway most of the crimes committed against Germans were not motivated by revenge of the soldiers but the system. Remember Ilya Ehrenstein, the Russian Goebbels.

@Ldeska:
I never justified the Molotow- Ribbentrop pact. It was as bad as the Yalta conference.
Also it is complete BS that nearly all Germans were Nazis as you intend to say. Infact Hitler's NSDAP got never the majority in the Reichstag (before his "Machtergreifung), even not in spring 1933. Yes he had support because of the reasons I explained. But that he had lost most of it by 1942/1943 is also clear. Only fear and the allied bombings kept the regime on power.
Also I never said, the Poles were not fighting bravely. However we should also not forget that Poles actively helped in the Holocaust, too. Also because of the history from 1919-1923 and the Polish invasions in upper Silesia you can also say they were partly responsible for Hitler, too (to a certain degree and indirectly).
That you came under Russian influence, do not balme us, but Churchill.

Adler

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 09:29 AM

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 09:45 AM

It's all about scale - in nation of many millions like Germans and Poles you always can find murderers, thieves etc. It's really offending to say that "Poles actively helped in the Holocaust". This is an insinuation that _many_ of them did so. I think that really few did it, uncomparable few if you compare it to people who acted in resistance. Poland had largest underground army in occupied Europe and _never_ created a puppet regime that would cooperate with Nazis.

You wrote that I intend to say "nearly all Germans were Nazis" - it was not only few people who was responsible. Each human being has it's soul and conscience. Would you shot in head a baby only because Hitler said so (because baby is jewish or polish)? German soldiers did it, not one or two, tenths thousands of them.

"Polish invasions in upper Silesia you can also say they were partly responsible for Hitler" - hard to discuss it even, sorry but have you forgot your meds today??? Read it once again and tell me how does it links to each other? And why you wrote 'Polish invasions'? Those lands were occupied by Germany, since the times when Germans seized it in 1790-1800. Why do you treat any piece of land where one German lives as a Germany? That's exactly how was Hitler thinking.
"And I thought, you were a supporter." - stop joking - 31 years old man who supports our government? Really rare. I repeat - I'm ashamed by my current government just like all my friends. In fact, it's impossible to find now even one person who would say publicly that voted for them :) Maybe they're not proud of it :)

Stolen Rutters

Mar 07, 2007, 09:57 AM

Yes, it appears from what I have read that Germany actually lost far less than they should have and Poland lost much, much more from the metric of "the victim" at least.

Everybody lost a lot in that war. Well, now that the borders are open and people can move where they want, I don't know why reparations to reverse the previous reparations are an issue for people now. I was under the impression that nationality in Europe is geographical based. Can't you just move to Ireland or Scotland for jobs now? It's the way the United States is set up at least... I assumed the EU open borders would let you move to whatever state holds the most opportunity for you.

Adler17

Mar 07, 2007, 10:14 AM

LDeska, look a bit in your history books and you'll find evidences, where Polish people attacked Jews after the Germans marched in. Antisemitism was not uncommon to Poland, too. Also I say this with the same rights and the same logic as you say most Germans were Nazis.
Erm, Silesia was not conquered from Poland but from Austria.

If you didn't vote for them and so many do not like the two ducks then Poland might not be lost yet ;).

Adler

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 10:27 AM

Again - it's all about scale. There are only few cases you've mentioned. The worst one concerned killing of 2-3 hundreds of people. I value each human life and consider each loss of life something horrible and impossible to justify, but I can not understand why we even discuss this issue here. How can we compare killing 3 millions of Jews, commited by German State with precision which should be used for better things to literally few acts of violence (BTW - some of them inspired by special Gestapo troops) which cause death of few hundreds of people? Those acts were horrible and I'm not trying to say that it was not important. As I said - each life is very important, but writing about it in this thread leads to a sentence 'everybody was killing, so we are equal'.

About our government - it's really a puzzle - who voted for them? We know how it looks like for you and I'm even more ashamed when I have to go abroad and hear what are those politicians saying :( My cousin lives near Dortmund (for 13 years already) when he had a meeting with his classmates from high school, everyone said that didn't voted for ducks :) in my work also noone voted for them... so who chose them :D ???

@Stolen Rutters - it is as you write, this is not an issue in today's Europe. Noone is thinking about shifting borders. Poland ratified it's borders with all neighbours long time ago. That's why I was surprised with this thread - it is really a bit too late now and secondly it's pointless as there is freedom of movement in EU now. Poles can go visit Wilno, Germans can go and visit Gdańsk - no problem, even if you want to move permanently.

Zardnaar

Mar 07, 2007, 12:13 PM

Poland got screwed in WW2.

West 36

Mar 07, 2007, 12:20 PM

Poland got screwed in WW2.

By Russia. Remember that Warsaw rising in '44? The Poles rose up since the Russians were knocking at the gates.. but the Russians decided to let the Poles do it themselves. They lost. THEN Russian put them under Soviet control for 50 years. Good stuff.

AND to say that Russia never would have taken those lands if it weren't for Germany.. no, he may not have gone so far west but I'm sure Stalin would have found a way to take some more land.

LDeska

Mar 07, 2007, 12:38 PM

@Zardnaar - Poland before war had two plans of war: defense from attack from west (Germany) and defense from attack from east (Russia). There was no way to defend from Germany and Russia attacking us together... Poland was too weak as it was trying to recover from being a colony in heart of Europe for last 123 years. It was also capitalistic state with free market unlike Germany and Russia which both had forms of communism. Germany was arming for many years, Poland did but in far less scale.
@West36 - wehad communistic regime for 44-45 years, not 50. As start we have to consider 1944-1945 when Poland was "liberated" by Red Army (in fact only occupier changed), the end was 1989, when Poland as the first in communistic bloc had elections that were not totally controlled by communists. Later Berlin Wall fell and other communistic countries overthrown as well...
Warsaw uprising was a horrible thing - 200k civilians died, over 90% of building were razed in a city of almost 2 milions. But it shown our true value - some historician say that it was a reason why there was no such intervention in Poland as was in Czechoslovakia, because Russians knew that Poles would rather fight till last man than surrender to them.

Mirc

Mar 07, 2007, 12:40 PM

Commy

Mar 07, 2007, 01:40 PM

@Commy - in English it is "Poles", not "Polishes" :)
I forgot it :hammer2:
Soviet Union lost war with Poland in 1920 - territories which were seized by Poland were simply regained - that was how Poland looked like in 1790, before partitions... take a look at map:
I Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Rzeczpospolita.png
II Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:RzeczpospolitaII.png
and now: III Republic: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:LocationPoland.png
I know that. But the population of this territories was mostly East-Slavian (Russians, Ukrainians and... err... Belorussians (is it correctly in English? :confused:)), not West-Slavian (Poles). They also was mostly Orthodoxes, not Catholics.
I think pan will not dispute aboute it :)
Ribbentrop-Molotov - you remember?
I don't know about Germany, but in Russia parliament declare this pact illegal.

Commy

Mar 07, 2007, 01:48 PM

By Russia. Remember that Warsaw rising in '44? The Poles rose up since the Russians were knocking at the gates.. but the Russians decided to let the Poles do it themselves. They lost. THEN Russian put them under Soviet control for 50 years. Good stuff.
Our armies crossed all Belorussia and western part of Poland within one month, as I remember. They need in supply and reinforcements in that time.

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 02:31 PM

Our armies crossed all Belorussia and western part of Poland within one month, as I remember. They need in supply and reinforcements in that time.

Considering that the units that reached the outskirts of Warsaw had in fact advanced a shorter distance and managed to operate quite well during the period of the uprising North and South of the city that argument is at best weak. Also if Stalin knew his own armies couldn't help what was stopping him letting the western armies do it? The early RAF attempts to airdrop supplies had to fly from (and return to) British and Italian bases because despite specific requests Stalin refused to allow soviet bases to be used.

Its far more likely that Stalin viewed the Home Army as a danger to his post war occupation plans and viewed the uprising as a way to let the Germans do his dirty work for him. I believe he referred to them (the Home Army) at one point as criminals and Beria tried to have them branded as fascists, despite how ludicrous that claim clearly was.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 04:24 PM

"Poland liberated by Red Army" - most typical Soviet propaganda. It's a shame it still has effect on real people in our days. That's why Germany is rich while Poland and Eastern Europe are poor, because they believe in any crap they are told.

1. Russia was not only let off easy, but possibly benefitted most from the war, which they by far did not deserve. They've (The Stalinists) committed more atrocities than the Nazis...although admittedly it was mostly to their own people.

EDIT: forget #2, I misread the post :crazyeye:

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 05:32 PM

Well this is first and foremost a touchy issue, especially in Poland, where feeling mistreated as a people is a part of the national identity.

I as a person born in Poland can really identify with the German wish for regaining cities like Köningsberg, because of my wish to regain Lwow, which was the second most important city in Poland before WW2.

But at the same time I feel ashamed of said feelings because of the suffering the Ukrainians have gone through during the last century, partly because of non kept Polish promises of military help against the Soviets; but especially because I find it deeply distasteful to hurt a nation further which is in a worse state than "mine" because of my nationalistic fancies. It would be much better for Poland and the Ukraine for Poland to promote swifter admittance of Ukraine to NATO and the EU (and give those meddling Muscovites a swift kick in the groin). Not to mention those unfortunate schmucks in Belarus.

The best thing really, as several have voiced, is to let bygones be bygones.

Not listening to my own advice I'm of the opinion that the whole mess is the Soviets fault, ravenous imperialists that they where/are.:p

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 05:53 PM

privatehudson

Mar 07, 2007, 06:29 PM

Threads evolve and touch on relevant topics. This one began with the question of whether Germany deserved to loose territory at the end of WW2. To determine that it would be relevant to look at the actions of Germany during the war to see if anything she did would be "deserving" of punishment in the context of previous peace agreements. Obviously though the manner in which that punishment was carried out was just as wrong as many of the things the Nazi state did.

I don't see any reason to turn specifially it into a thread where we all regret that Germans got screwed, that would make a very quick discussion and cut short what is at present a rather interesting one.

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 06:30 PM

"Only problem is the same people who are saying "let bygones be bygones" aren't doing so. They're getting angry and blaming everything on Germany and being bitter, NOT letting things go"

That is not an accurate description of Verbose's posts and personally I believe that it is also far from descriptive of my post. Maybe your getting the touchiness of the issue get to you and react ever so slightly in a overtly defensive manner?
I think you'll find those that say "let bygones be bygones" and those who promote unchanged borders because they find them more fair, to be separate individuals in most cases.

As to the last sentence of my post:
The Polish government that displaced Germans from their native soil was a Soviet puppet, whilst the true government sat in exile in London. Which is why I totally blame the Soviets for the atrocity.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 06:44 PM

Saying "who cares about you! What about so-and-so?" is not a relevent evolution of the thread privatehudson. I'd also like to point out the title of the thread... :goodjob:

I wasn't saying everyone was saying such Pokurcz, and I wouldn't describe accusing someone of being overly defensive as a logical and rational argument, in a sense negating such a statement by the principle upon which it is founded: being overly defensive

My stance is that I don't think Germany deserved to have so much taken from them after WWII, and used how so many others even benefitted from commiting similar atrocities, that after the overly harsh Versailles treaty (which in itself was a large measure of ingratitude on the behalf of the French in return for the kind treatment offered them at the end of the Napoleonic wars) Germany shouldn't have been so badly abused, and lands that at the time were rightfully German and had a dense German population should have stayed German, rather than being partitioned out to imperialistic ambitions, which is exactly the same thing that happened to Poland (hence my disappointment on the Polish agreement on this view, with no offense to the Polish intended of course ;) )

And Adler has provided ample evidence to back up my opinion, although it may not be for the same reasons.

Take into account, what are the three most harsh treaties and war ending agreements imposed on a losing nation?

How many of them were imposed on Germany by so-called lovers of democracy and fairness?

Sobieski II

Mar 07, 2007, 06:48 PM

Only problem is the same people who are saying "let bygones be bygones" aren't doing so. They're getting angry and blaming everything on Germany and being bitter, NOT letting things go

that wasn't the point of the thread. It was a "wish Germany hadn't been mistreated" thread. We can start one for Ukraine, Poland, or any other nation. We never said that they weren't mistreated.

We were just talking about the mistreatments in Germany

and I do agree with the last sentence somewhat ;)

You cannot separate the mistreatment of the Germans from the context of the far greater mistreatment of the non-Germans by the Germans.

Either forget and forgive both, or we can have a "tally" contest; an argument which the German-supporters can only lose.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 06:58 PM

Germany lose to Russia?

I think not

look at it from more than just a western perspective. I saw the war from Russia's and it supported my argument.

and you cannot separate the distinction between Nazis and Germans

Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.

Otherwise, would the German Republic have lasted at all?

Pokurcz

Mar 07, 2007, 07:09 PM

"I wasn't saying everyone was saying such Pokurcz, and I wouldn't describe accusing someone of being overly defensive as a logical and rational argument, in a sense negating such a statement by the principle upon which it is founded: being overly defensive"

Now look here, my statement that triggered your answer cited above was based on the claim in my first post that this is a sensitive issue and was not meant as some sort of pun. I only meant to point out that "perhaps" your feelings got you carried away and resulted in IMO claims not supported by the facts.

You forget the war between France and Germany in the 1870s, when the Germans where less than "kind", but I do agree that the Allies where excessively vengeful in deed in the Versailles treaty.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 07:12 PM

Sobieski II

Mar 07, 2007, 07:33 PM

Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.

Otherwise, would the German Republic have lasted at all?

What is "truly" a Nazi then? Most didn't know exactly what was happening, that is true. But that doesn't change the fact that they largely supported the government that did it, at the time they did it; and if the war had ended in 1940 with a peace treaty, leaving Germany most of Europe, the Germans probably would have kept on supporting the Nazis for a long time. Odds are they would have pushed the "hey, what happened to all the Jews? Weren't there 33 million Poles before the war? Because now there are only 10 million..." questions out of their heads as long as possible.

Having to get carpet bombed by the combined power of most of the freaking democratic (and Stalinist) world to learn your collective moral mistake is not something to take pride in.

That being said, I am impressed with how intelligently most Germans with even basic education handle the history of WWII. Probably more objective than most of the rest of the world. However, as time goes on and generations pass, lots of Germans seem to feel the need to connect emotionally with the Allied cause. Hence the exaggeration of the local opposition to Hitler in the first years of the war. Unfortunately for the Germans, this just isn't how it was.

Nylan

Mar 07, 2007, 07:39 PM

Read some books about life in Germany during the Nazi reign.

You either cheered in public and "supported" the Reich or you died/went to a camp. Voicing your opinion on ANYTHING could very well get you and your entire family deported and slaughtered. There was no option. You lived in fear.

As Adler mentioned, the Nazis NEVER got an honest majority in the Reichstag

and I'd ask Stalin about the Jews.

as well as the rest of the 28 million (I think that's the right number) "missing people"

West 36

Mar 07, 2007, 07:46 PM

A lot of arguments have ended with saying "Well the Germans deserved to lose territory for killing so many people" but I don't believe that taking land is in anyway a punishment for killing people. "AH! The Poles have lost millions, lets give some German land to them, and that will solve the problem!" does that make sense? If the U.S. invades... Canada, and alot of other nations get involved, and America loses, and Canada gains, say, Maine, Washington, etc, does this make sense. Should countries be rewarded with territory for what they have had to deal with? I'm wondering now what the reason was for giving the Poles that territory, and if it truely was because of the tremendous toll their population took.

Verbose

Mar 07, 2007, 11:30 PM

The Germans were more than kind

The French rejected the generous peace terms-hence the continuing war and siege of Paris. The war should have ended with the capture of Napleon III, that's when peace was offered. Therefore it's not Germany's fault, but that of the French who refused peace.
It's a bit OT to the thread, but never mind Napoleon III, the French people didn't consider the war over.
Would the people of the US have accepted defeat at a point where they had more armies in the field than when the war started and didn't feel beat yet, trusting to the "kindness" of the enemy? I don't think so.

privatehudson

Mar 08, 2007, 12:55 AM

Saying "who cares about you! What about so-and-so?" is not a relevent evolution of the thread privatehudson

Just because some people may hold that view does not give others the ability to dictate how the thread should run. Since many do not hold the above view it seems silly to suggest such a thing.

I'd also like to point out the title of the thread...

Well if you want to be that pedantic I'd point to the question mark in the title, or the first post. It doesn't say that the thread is only to lament the events of WW2 on Germany, it talks about a thread to discuss whether the loss of land was deserved or not. I personally find the notion that any population might have deserved what happened to them in WW2 to be of little relevance though. Like I said earlier, people didn't get what they deserved.

I prefer to question whether what happened was to be expected rather than if it was deserved. It is therefore entirely relevant to compare what happened to the Germans to what happened to other people, and also relevant to consider the nature of the war in understanding why the peace was so harsh on Germany.

You'd like to lament what happened to Germany, fine. I'm sure the majority of people here would agree that the German civilian population were by and large as much victims of Hitler and the war as anyone else. Its impossible to read a book on the last months of fighting without feeling sorry for those trapped by circumstance between Nazi incompetence and inhumanity and the advancing Soviet army. Lets be quite clear on this matter though, the fate that befell the German people was not just the fault of the Soviets or Poles. You could look at the refusal to allow evacuation of major urban areas, the use of civilians in military formations, the incompetence and hypocrisy of Nazi leaders, the desperate attempts to save their own skin or reputation or any of the other insane acts of the Nazi regime in its final year.

Adler17

Mar 08, 2007, 12:57 AM

At first many say Versailles was hard because of Frankfurt 1871. But then you have to see Tilsit 1806, too.
Anyway Versailles is the major reason for the catastrophe of 1939-1945/90. But that is not topic here. Sobieski II. the Nazis committed crimes of an unknown degree. That is bad. But does one crime justify another? The Germans killed, abused and displaced were mostly innocent. The few really guilty persons were either dead, imprisoned or on the run. But not in that areas. Also the Holocaust is mostly said as an excuse to justify the crimes against Germans. I am so daring and say that indeed the Holocaust was in no way causing the displacements. Stalin wanted to do so and the western Allies let him do so. Only his Imperialistic dreams were making that possible. So yes, the Russians are to blame first. OTOH that does not lower the guilt of the Nazis. Indeed both has to be very well seperated. And yes, I know, Poland lost also lands. And of that areas at least the territories where a Polish majority was living in before the war should be given back to Poland.

@Verbose: The Germans made in 1870 an offer of peace. The French would have paid a small sum and agreed to the German unification and all was okay. It was the French who declined the offer but fought further.

Adler

Steph

Mar 08, 2007, 01:03 AM

The French rejected the generous peace terms-hence the continuing war and siege of Paris. The war should have ended with the capture of Napleon III, that's when peace was offered. Therefore it's not Germany's fault, but that of the French who refused peace.

When we surrender to the Germans in 1940 "without figthint" we are called cowards. When we decide to continue the fight in 1870, we are criticized as well..
No body likes us :cry:

Zardnaar

Mar 08, 2007, 01:33 AM

Adler17

Mar 08, 2007, 01:43 AM

No, as it was the cause for Adolf.

Adler

Knight-Dragon

Mar 08, 2007, 02:16 AM

While I realise this is a sensitive topic for some, here's a gentle reminder to pls restrain yourselves and mind the forum rules. Thanks.

Zardnaar

Mar 08, 2007, 02:44 AM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

LDeska

Mar 08, 2007, 03:15 AM

@Mirc - don't you get the irony in my post??? In my post I put word 'liberated' in quotation marks to show that it was not liberation, simply change of occupier.
I wrote:

As start we have to consider 1944-1945 when Poland was "liberated" by Red Army (in fact only occupier changed)
Believe me, we do not treat years 1945-1989 as a period of independence. As I wrote before - it was a communistic regime with HQ in Moscow.
And the reason why Poland is not as rich as Germany today is what I wrote before - 45 years of communism in Poland and 45 years of free market in Germany. If you compare East Germany to Poland today you will see that Poland is doing better - for example we have lower unemployment than in East Germany (and remember that West Germany is pumping money in East for last 15 years, they have even special tax which they pay in western lands to help the eastern lands).
@Commy - I agree that in eastern parts of II Rzeczpospolita were huge minorities. I don't know the exact proportions, so I can not dispute it. I know that cities were populated mostly by Poles and villages mostly by Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians. About Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - when was it declared illegal in Russia? I didn't knew about it...
About Warsaw Uprising '44 - it was clearly cruel way to fight Home Army which was still loyal to Polish Government in exile (in London) and wanted a really independent Poland after war. Stalin wanted a puppet regime so he (for the last time in WW2) cooperated with Germans - he denied western Allies the right to land in his territory so they could not help Poles, they flown from Italy and England risking huge loses to supply Warsaw (223 sorties and lost 34 aircraft). Stalin halted his troops and waited until Warsaw was razed and all people expelled from Warsaw.
@privatehudson - it's very sad but it was true that after the war during 'stalinism' people from Home Army were arrested and killed without a trial or after a fake trials. Those fake trials were even worse, because communists blamed people who devoted their lives to free Poland as nazi collaborators and sentenced to death or long prison. After few years, when Stalin died, most of those murdered people were rehabilitated and those who were not killed had their sentences shortened.
@Pokurcz - I think the same as you and it's happening now. Hopefully even ducks didn't forget about Ukraine - wasn't yesterday when he met with president of Ukraine? Poland is supporting Ukrainian aspirations to join EU and NATO from the very beginning.
@West 36 - you're messing up facts. Poland lost territory in WW2, not gained! Take a look at maps I've provided in one of previous posts... Russia took much more from Poland in east, than we gained in west.

Mirc

Mar 08, 2007, 03:25 AM

@Mirc - don't you get the irony in my post??? In my post I put word 'liberated' in quotation marks to show that it was not liberation, simply change of occupier.
I wrote:

Believe me, we do not treat years 1945-1989 as a period of independence. As I wrote before - it was a communistic regime with HQ in Moscow.
And the reason why Poland is not as rich as Germany today is what I wrote before - 45 years of communism in Poland and 45 years of free market in Germany. If you compare East Germany to Poland today you will see that Poland is doing better - for example we have lower unemployment than in East Germany (and remember that West Germany is pumping money in East for last 15 years, they have even special tax which they pay in western lands to help the eastern lands).

I know and agree that Eastern Europe is poorer because of the communism. Basically after WW2 the west abandoned the area leaving it in the sphere of influence of Russia. But I also have to say unemployment is not the right criteria for judging this: Romania has lowest unemployment in Europe, yet Poland is doing better. :) Also East Germany has the huge advantage of a lot of funds from West Germany, that were given to them for free.

Also, yes, I do agree Russia took more of Poland than what it gave to it. It's exactly the same thing that they did with Romania (took the big important region of Bugeac and also northern Bukovine, and gave Moldova the insignificant region of Transnistria "in exchange").

Sobieski II

Mar 08, 2007, 09:13 AM

and I'd ask Stalin about the Jews.

as well as the rest of the 28 million (I think that's the right number) "missing people"

Stalin undoubtedly killed many people, but however you wish to revise history, the Germans were responsible for almost all of the dead Jews. How could Stalin have killed the 3 million Polish Jews when they were in German-occupied Poland? And how do we explain the fact that a bulk of the Jews in the rest of the former Russian "Pale" were killed once the German troops arrived? Perhaps you should read some history.

And who were those men the Germans were mowing down with their machine guns on the Eastern Front then? They were Soviets. True, at least in the case of non-Jewish Soviets, the Germans mostly killed them in battle, but then you were the invader so you take most of the blame... even if Soviet battle tactics were criminally negligent to the lives of their troops.

willemvanoranje

Mar 08, 2007, 10:01 AM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

Germany was in an almost constant great depression because of Versailles. It had to make payments it never could have made. The first signs of disaster showed up years before the '29 crash already. The Weimar Republic was never able to consolidate democracy. Hitler showed up in 1922 already, but his march to Berlin was of course stopped in the streets of München already. That's what you get from starting a revolt when you're drunk. But by 1925 Germany was full of fighting groups belonging to political parties, most of them having WWI veterans that just had nothing better to do since Versailles had cut down Germany's army from a few million (incl. conscripts obviously) to 100.000. In the Weimar Republic, issues were not solved by talking to each other, but by massive fights on the street. There was no civil society that knew how to deal with democracy.

Sobieski II

Mar 08, 2007, 01:08 PM

Well, Germany may have been in a Depression, but that is only a reason, not an excuse for Hitler.

I assure you the Great Depression was worse on the Canadian Prairies than it was in Germany, where it was combined with massive drought. Perhaps Germany had it worse in the 20s, but in the 30s, almost everyone had it bad.

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 01:14 PM

About Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - when was it declared illegal in Russia? I didn't knew about it...
About 17 years ago. If you want, I'll say you exactly.
About Warsaw Uprising '44 - it was clearly cruel way to fight Home Army which was still loyal to Polish Government in exile (in London) and wanted a really independent Poland after war. Stalin wanted a puppet regime so he (for the last time in WW2) cooperated with Germans - he denied western Allies the right to land in his territory so they could not help Poles, they flown from Italy and England risking huge loses to supply Warsaw (223 sorties and lost 34 aircraft). Stalin halted his troops and waited until Warsaw was razed and all people expelled from Warsaw.
Why you think my arguments about Warsaw uprising are baseless?
Communists blamed people who devoted their lives to free Poland as nazi collaborators and sentenced to death or long prison. After few years, when Stalin died, most of those murdered people were rehabilitated and those who were not killed had their sentences shortened.
This communists were Polish, not Russian.
Poland is supporting Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO
Why? To let Americans set their wareheads somewhere near Poltava, and set their military bases in Crimea?
Russia took much more from Poland in east, than we gained in west.
Eastern Polish lands were mostly East-Slavians than Polish. Now this territories are parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, so you can raise your claims to this countries and their presidents. For example, to Lukashenko :lol:

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 01:23 PM

It's exactly the same thing that they did with Romania (took the big important region of Bugeac and also northern Bukovine, and gave Moldova the insignificant region of Transnistria "in exchange").
But Romania occuped Moldova after WWI and Rusian revolution. Before Romanian occupation Moldavia was Russian.
Bukovine was old Austrian crown land. It was mostly populated by Ukrainians.

Mirc

Mar 08, 2007, 01:47 PM

^ What? ????? Never heard this ever in my life! It was Russian? :lol: :rotfl: :lol:

Please do tell me if you are being sarcastic.

smalltalk

Mar 08, 2007, 01:52 PM

Also it is complete BS that nearly all Germans were Nazis as you intend to say. Infact Hitler's NSDAP got never the majority in the Reichstag (before his "Machtergreifung), even not in spring 1933. Very few Germans were truly Nazis. Most did not approve of what happened.Not true.

10% of the Germans were member of the Party.
44% voted Nazi in the last free elections.
Conservative parties cheered when members of the communist party were seized.

You either cheered in public and "supported" the Reich or you died/went to a camp. Voicing your opinion on ANYTHING could very well get you and your entire family deported and slaughtered. There was no option. You lived in fear.Not true, either.

Many people, who didn't want or couldn't afford to emigrate went into "inner emigration." They just fell silent.

For example, there was the option for conscientious objectors to be sent to flak squads instead of being assigned to fighting duty.
Obviously though the manner in which that punishment was carried out was just as wrong as many of the things the Nazi state did.I don't feel what happened was a punishment.

The Soviets just didn't want to roll back their territory gain from Molotow-Ribbentrop pact, and they didn't mind devouring Köningsberg/Kaliningrad-area, when the opportunity arose.

The Polish tried to egalise their territorial losses by moving westward, not to punish but just to stay afloat.

Very practical reasons, I feel.
I'm wondering now what the reason was for giving the Poles that territory, and if it truely was because of the tremendous toll their population took.See above.

privatehudson

Mar 08, 2007, 02:38 PM

I don't feel what happened was a punishment.

I wasn't just talking about land loss but the overall fate of Germans and Germany of which loss of land is but one part.

willemvanoranje

Mar 08, 2007, 02:48 PM

Perhaps Germany had it worse in the 20s, but in the 30s, almost everyone had it bad.

And by that time, it was too late already. :(

Nylan

Mar 08, 2007, 03:24 PM

Wouldn't the greta depression be a more direct cause for Hitler?

The great depression was so horrible in Germany because of Versailles. That was the point Adler and I were making. Forced to pay huge indemnities, stripped of their colonies which would have helped them pay them as well as a large portion of their lands and population which would also have helped with payment and with the economy...humiliated to the utmost degree for being the one nation to be punished by the rest in a war when there were no "good guys". It had a serious effect on the harsh conditions that led to a desire for a strong leader. Adolf comes along and provides them with that, and of course deceives the German people into giving him power, which he used to tighten the leash and start his reign of terror.

Chain reaction

EDIT: Yes, smalltalk, it is true. You couldn't really get along without being a member of the party and supporting it. Furthermore those few "favors" of not being sent to camps and going on flak squads etc. were few and far between. That's what all the evidence I've seen supports. Can you show me examples saying otherwise?

Sobieski II

Mar 08, 2007, 03:51 PM

I would say that the Great Depression would have been pretty terrible to Germany even without Versailles. Why would Germany avoid what the rest of the world couldn't?

Here is what the Great Depression looked like in my area of the world:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/20388/kansasdustbowl.jpg

Nylan

Mar 08, 2007, 06:53 PM

and beforehand?

West 36

Mar 08, 2007, 09:15 PM

Ok, so I understand now how Poland didint gain territory, but rather shifted, and in so doing took land from Germany, because that megalomaniac in Moscow had to please his fancy of expansion by any means, so the USSR is the culprit here, agreed? probably not. But next topic, I'm not so sure of how the Great Depression helped Hitler, because of their own, and this may have been inevitable despite what happened globaly. Just a thought.

Commy

Mar 08, 2007, 10:01 PM

^ What? ????? Never heard this ever in my life! It was Russian? :lol: :rotfl: :lol:

Please do tell me if you are being sarcastic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Bessarabia-sce.png
Yellow territories were part of Russia

Sobieski II

Mar 08, 2007, 11:34 PM

and beforehand?

Umm... imagine some crops for one.

Adler17

Mar 09, 2007, 12:12 AM

Sobieski, the Great Depression would have hit Germany not as hard as it did. There would have been not 6 million unemployees and thus not so many votes to Hitler and the Communists.

@ smalltalk:
44 % in a hardly fair and free elections. It is more significant as Hitler did not come over 50% (as he tried). Also the communists were not very well seen in all other parties.
Also 10% of the Germans might have been in the party. Okay. But how many were in just to have no trouble at work? Who were in to oppose Hitler and not to be detected? Who were in who were in someway forced to be so? And who were the hard core of the party? In the elections before 1929 Hitler got only about 3% of the votes. That is the significant number.

Adler

LDeska

Mar 09, 2007, 03:21 AM

@Commy
About 17 years ago. If you want, I'll say you exactly.
So it was just a symbolic act (more than 60 years after this pact was signed) - it's just, however before 17 years ago Russia not only was obeying this pact, also denied even it's existing. In our schools children listen to a story that Russians helped us - took our lands to protect those lands from Hitler. This was official communistic propaganda in Poland...
Why you think my arguments about Warsaw uprising are baseless?
Because they are... how can we discuss this issue if you do not have knowledge in this area? Please read any source on Warsaw Uprising which was not written in Soviet Union. Even wikipedia, which is not best source. What happened is so obvious and clear - there is so many historical sources that proves that Stalin on purpose halted his troops (which were in Warsaw, only on other bank of river) that it's really baseless to say it was different...
This communists were Polish, not Russian.
And who put them in that position? Who made it possible and gave them power? They were criminals, who's only source of power in Poland was millions of Red Army's soldiers who left Poland only in 1991 or something similiar. Poland never was and never wanted to be communistic. We were a republic since 1791 (our first constitution). Don't you know that in the beginning most important posts were held by Russians or people who Russians trusted enough to put them in those posts? What was happening when someone was trying to something else that was planned in Moscow? I'll give an example: first secretary of Polish Communistic Party went to Moscow on 12.III.1956 for XX summit of Soviet Union Communistic Party. He returned in a coffin, 'cause he was not good enough.
Think a bit before you post - you're offending my country by insinuating that communism in Poland was our internal thing. Isn't strange that in every part of the world where Red Army entered there was a communistic revolution?
It was simply a way to take over the power in those countries and enslave people living there.
Hopefully Russians didn't thought that taking Poland will be their fault - Solidarity was stronger than Russian tanks and now we may enjoy our free country without even one foreign soldier on our soil. :D
Why? To let Americans set their wareheads somewhere near Poltava, and set their military bases in Crimea?
Each state where Americans entered is doing quite well: Germany, Japan, South Korea, with Russians it is quite different: Russia itself, East Europe, North Korea... so it's all up to Ukrainians, but if in their place I would accept such help.
Secondly - really Russia is not a threat to USA anymore, so what are you afraid of? USA have no interest in attacking Russia, they are much more interested in China, India and Middle East now.
Eastern Polish lands were mostly East-Slavians than Polish. Now this territories are parts of Ukraine and Belorussia, so you can raise your claims to this countries and their presidents. For example, to Lukashenko
Maybe eastern parts were, but Russians took a lot of land - what you are saying is again taken from communistic schools.
And why do you think that anyone in Poland wants to raise any claims? As I wrote - borders are untouchable in Europe - we had too much problems with this.
Claims that we raise is against ignorance of people who think that Russia was the victim in WW2 - in fact until 1941 Russia was the attacker just like Germany and started the war together with Hitler by attacking Poland in September 1939.

@smalltalk
The Polish tried to egalise their territorial losses by moving westward, not to punish but just to stay afloat.
I would like it to be true, however the truth is that Poles had nothing to say in Jalta conference, we were not invited even, only USA, England and Russia took part in it and they decided how Europe will look like after WW2. They had to move somewhere those millions of Poles who lived in eastern Poland (yes Commy, there were millions of Poles) so they decided to took lands from Germany and move Poles to those new lands.

@Commy - tell me why you, Russians have to have so much land? You are always not pleased: Moldova is Russian, Kuryl islands are Russian, Chechnya is Russian, I do not understand this...

Pokurcz

Mar 09, 2007, 04:15 AM

LDeska
"tell me why you, Russians have to have so much land?"

Because Russia (perhaps inspired under the yoke of the golden Horde) has always been a ravenous totalitarian expansionist beast that much like locust does not consolidate land captured effectively enough not to be forced to expand on to new land to ravage? ;)

At least that is my fathers opinion, and I actually do not think that it is far from the truth. :sad:

(let it be known that the top notion is meant as a description of Russia as a collective and the doings of its ruling classes and not about its individual members)

Mirc

Mar 09, 2007, 04:16 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Bessarabia-sce.png
Yellow territories were part of Russia

Wait, let's not start a serious discussion about this here, as we would be going off-topic. Let me state an answer to your post, and then if you want to discuss this further start a new thread. :)

Have you ever heard about Osiesti family? They were a family from Moldova, who were writing letters to each other, and produced the oldest surviving document in Romanian, in late 1200. Actually, the oldest well-preserved document is Neacsu's letter, from 1521, but the oldest document from which only fragments were preserved was from 934. Guess in what language that thing was written? ;)

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/balkans/moldvall1500s.gif
1500 AD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mihai_1600.png
The Principalities, 1600 AD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/1606_map_Ward_1912.jpg
1606-1700

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Rom1793-1812.png
Quote from source:
"Principalities with Romanian population before Moldavia was stripped of Bessarabia, 1793-1812"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rom1856-1859.png
Romania 1856-1859

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Romania_MASSR_1920.png
Romania after WW1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Romania_WWII.png
Results of WW2 for Romania

Want any more proof? I can give it. ;)

StarWorms

Mar 09, 2007, 05:46 AM

Verbose

Mar 09, 2007, 06:40 AM

They lost the war. They're pretty lucky to still have a country at all.
Why? Should German national destruction have been an allied war-objective, instead of simply the defeat of Nazism? They weren't equating Germany with Nazism.

Zardnaar

Mar 09, 2007, 03:27 PM

Adler New Zealand and Australia suffered some of the highest casualties in WW1 per capita in the world. Our economy was built around exporting food (still is) and we were paying off WW1 war loans- the government borrowed money IIRC to build the HMS New Zealand a Battlecruiser amoung other things. The farms were abandoned as men went off to fight the war as we had one of the highest %%%% of men enlisted for the size of the population in the world. The great depression came along and we were screwed. The governments response was to create social security and provide jobs via public work schemes. Revenge was a popular concept in Germany not just propaganda from the Nazis.

The myth of stabbed in the back was also around as German troops were still in France in November 1918. If the war dragged on a few more months Germany would have been invaded. The treaty of Versailles was only an excuse as the amount of money payed out by Germany was less thanthe damage inflicted on France in 1914-1918. My point being other countries had it tough as well but since we won the war (at great cost BTW) didn't develop any desire for revenge or rearmament.

Modern German tourists in New Zealand often comment on at the centre of virtually every small town in New Zealand is a war memorial with the names of the dead inscribed on it. They were built in the 20's to remember the war dead. As I said we had one of the highest casualty figures per capita in the war. The tourists say that war memorials are rare in Germany. Lest we forget is used on ANZAC day (Australia,New Zealand Army Corp) every 25th of April to remember them. April 25th 1915 was the Gallipoli landings in Turkey. Attendence is going up and it is the closest thing we have to a national day. Other countries remember revolutions or declearations of independence. Our national day is a military defeat to remember the dead.

Most countries suffered but the Nazis were either a perversion of national pride or a dark reflection of the German national pride.