May 9th, 1945

[red_elk]

Considering the Reich's economy was so bad it would have collapsed in a decade - no more - most non-Jews may actually have been better off under the Germans than 50 years of Soviet rule.

I love such kind of exceptions. Most non-Jews, non-Gypsies, non-communists, non-homosexuals and... non-Poles actually would be better off under Nazi rule.

After the war, under the "Big Plan", GPO foresaw the deportation of 45 million non-Germanizable people from Eastern Europe, of whom 31 million were "racially undesirable" Jews (100% of pre-war population), Poles (85%), Belorussians (75%) and Ukrainians (64%), to West Siberia,[2] and about 14 millions were to remain, but were to be treated as slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

But this is a ridiculous strawman, Cheezy, since it was the Germans who attacked the Russians, not the other way around. The Russians invaded enemy territory when they entered German-controlled Poland - literally, as a matter of fact, since it was included in the Greater German Reich. They were no more liberating it than they liberated Prussia.

Formally, no:

Medals "For the liberation of Warsaw" and "For the capturing of Koenigsberg", respectively.

Factually, it didn't matter, was Poland part of Reich or not, as since occupied parts of the USSR were also included in Reich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine
And according to your logic, Red Army entering Ukraine also invaded enemy territory.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes maybe they should have left you to the designs of the Nazis. Surely a brighter future awaited.

Because, clearly, that was the only possible alternative.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I didn't see in your posts where you point out inaccuracies in that brief text. Please quote what is wrong there, specifically.

I did not mean inaccuracies in the text literally. I only say that this presentation can give a false impression. Someone who know almost anything about uprising may accept false version of history.

As far as I see this presentation only focus on "good" things and totally omits "bad" ones. That will surely glorify participants, but is not historically accurate.

What lead you to such conclusion? As far as I understood, the only material from the site you've seen so far is very short page about Warsaw uprising, which was not indended to fully cover all aspects of it, just to show a few facts and admit controversy. The site is not about AK or Poland - it is about Soviet soldiers, who, by the way, had nothing to do with political decisions, they just fought and died fighting with Nazis in your country. But for Poles it's apparently not enough to admit their good deeds for Poland, not to mention considering them heroes.

What leads to such conclusion? Omitting "bad" things. It is entirely normal that when someone is speaking about it's country's history wants also to "forget" about all bad things and focus only on heroic gestures. I agree and understand that it is a Russian site about Russian soldiers - and that's why for example mentioning there killing and arresting AK soldiers (or mentioning Soviets wanting uprising to fall) would ruin this beautiful presentation.

About being thankful or calling them heroes - they are your heroes. Isn't that enough?

 

[red_elk]

I did not mean inaccuracies in the text literally. I only say that this presentation can give a false impression. Someone who know almost anything about uprising may accept false version of history.

As far as I see this presentation only focus on "good" things and totally omits "bad" ones. That will surely glorify participants, but is not historically accurate.

Did you see any other parts of the presentation, except Warsaw uprising part?
Even that part described neither Polish nor Soviet version of events. It did not say that Soviets did everything to help uprising - quite the opposite, it says that Poles consider that Soviets had to do more. For me it sounds as objective as short article could possibly be. But for you, it must state Polish version and nothing else, otherwise it is "Soviet propaganda".

What leads to such conclusion? Omitting "bad" things. It is entirely normal that when someone is speaking about it's country's history wants also to "forget" about all bad things and focus only on heroic gestures. I agree and understand that it is a Russian site about Russian soldiers - and that's why for example mentioning there killing and arresting AK soldiers (or mentioning Soviets wanting uprising to fall) would ruin this beautiful presentation.

There are various materials which are intended to describe different sides of war. This particular one describes battle events and what happened on fronts. With mentioning of all bad and unfavorable (for army) things which happened on battlefields in 1941 and later. According to you, even memorials for Soviet soldiers are "propaganda", because they don't mention bad things about them

About being thankful or calling them heroes - they are your heroes. Isn't that enough?

Not only them. Polish soldiers of Anders and Berling armies. British, American, Canadian and other Allied soldiers who fought on our side are heroes too, and we are thankful for them very much. Regardless of politics of their countries (Churchill, for example had plans to attack his Soviet "allies" in May 1945).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Considering the Reich's economy was so bad it would have collapsed in a decade - no more - most non-Jews may actually have been better off under the Germans than 50 years of Soviet rule. But this is a ridiculous strawman, Cheezy, since it was the Germans who attacked the Russians, not the other way around. The Russians invaded enemy territory when they entered German-controlled Poland - literally, as a matter of fact, since it was included in the Greater German Reich. They were no more liberating it than they liberated Prussia.

You're missing the whole "slavs are subhumans to be worked to death/exterminated/kicked off the land" thing. Kind of puts a damper on your whole argument there.

 

[Lord Baal]

I love such kind of exceptions. Most non-Jews, non-Gypsies, non-communists, non-homosexuals and... non-Poles actually would be better off under Nazi rule.

How about the Balts? Peoples like Czechs and Poles were seen as "redeemable" if they had certain physical characteristics, such as blonde hair and blue eyes, which are hardly uncommon. Even many Russians would be seen as redeemable under these guidelines.

After the war, under the "Big Plan", GPO foresaw the deportation of 45 million non-Germanizable people from Eastern Europe, of whom 31 million were "racially undesirable" Jews (100% of pre-war population), Poles (85%), Belorussians (75%) and Ukrainians (64%), to West Siberia,[2] and about 14 millions were to remain, but were to be treated as slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

This plan was utterly unworkable. Germany would have collapsed in a decade, no longer. Any competent economist will tell you this. As such, it simply wouldn't have had the time to complete any of these plans. As things were, Germany had to abandon many extermination programmes for the simple reason that they needed the conquered peoples as labour. Now, life under the Nazis would have been unpleasant to the extreme, murderous even, but it would have lasted 10-12 years at the outside. Soviet rule, while better for a lot of people, lasted 50 years.

Also, if I remember correctly - I may not - that was Heydrich's plan. This is the same guy who thought he was going to sterilise "ideologically suitable, but racially unsuitable" Czechs, and they'd go along with it nicely and continue to follow his orders, because they were "ideologically suitable." The man, for all his culture and intelligence, was fond of wildly impracticable schemes that even Hitler and Himmler thought were too much.

You're also forgetting that many of the peoples under German rule were NOT Slavs, Jews, or otherwise "undesirable." Even many of those who were, such as Slovaks and Croats, received special privileges by virtue of being German clients. By the time Germany felt able to stab allies like these in the back and kill or enslave them, the Reich would already have long-since fallen.

Formally, no:

Medals "For the liberation of Warsaw" and "For the capturing of Koenigsberg", respectively.

I'm not talking about formal parlance, but propaganda. Russian claims of liberating Eastern Europe are often extended to areas formally under German control before Hitler's takeover, such as East Prussia and parts of Silesia. Even East Germany.

Factually, it didn't matter, was Poland part of Reich or not, as since occupied parts of the USSR were also included in Reich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine
And according to your logic, Red Army entering Ukraine also invaded enemy territory.

[/quote]
No they weren't. The borders of the Greater German Reich never extended east beyond the Polish "General Government." They didn't even include Soviet-occupied Poland. The Reich Commissariats, of which there were two - The Ukraine and the "Eastern Land" (parts of Belarus, the Baltic states and a few portions of Russia-proper) - were colonies. They were under German rule, but so was occupied France. They were never considered German territory.

You're missing the whole "slavs are subhumans to be worked to death/exterminated/kicked off the land" thing. Kind of puts a damper on your whole argument there.

Not really, since Germany never had the capacity to fulfill this long-term goal. If it weren't for Speer's success in rationalising the German economy it may well have collapsed during the war. It never would have survived past the early-1950s, if it lasted that long. Also, as has been pointed out prior, many of the people under German rule were not Slavs, and many Slavs received preferential treatment which exempted them from such work.

Also, as Yeekim said, your whole argument is a damn straw man anyway, since being Germany's rape victim or Russia's rape victim were hardly the only choices available. Maybe Stalin should have given Poland those democratic elections he promised? Or not overthrown the democratically elected government of Czechoslovakia? Perhaps the USSR should have allowed Hungary and other states to break away from the Warsaw Pact when they tried? Don't worry about replying to this paragraph Cheezy, I already know you'll simply say that those people were enemies of the revolution and that they deserved their fate. Though I'm willing to be surprised.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not really, since Germany never had the capacity to fulfill this long-term goal. If it weren't for Speer's success in rationalising the German economy it may well have collapsed during the war. It never would have survived past the early-1950s, if it lasted that long. Also, as has been pointed out prior, many of the people under German rule were not Slavs, and many Slavs received preferential treatment which exempted them from such work.



Also, as Yeekim said, your whole argument is a damn straw man anyway, since being Germany's rape victim or Russia's rape victim were hardly the only choices available. Maybe Stalin should have given Poland those democratic elections he promised? Or not overthrown the democratically elected government of Czechoslovakia? Perhaps the USSR should have allowed Hungary and other states to break away from the Warsaw Pact when they tried? Don't worry about replying to this paragraph Cheezy, I already know you'll simply say that those people were enemies of the revolution and that they deserved their fate. Though I'm willing to be surprised.

If you don't expect me to respond then you are simply a troll, throwing out insulting non-quotes and caricatures of peoples' positions.

Anyway, which one of us is defending Nazi racial ideology as being the better of two evils?

It matters not whether they had the "long-term capability" to kill all the Slavs, or whether some of them received preferential treatment (how you cannot see the manipulation in that - some Jews received preferential treatment too, before they were exterminated with the rest of their lot); because they were well on their way there by the time the Soviets saved enslaved them.

And if the Soviets had done precisely as you say they should, which is to have simply halted at the Polish border and waited the Germans out economically, what would be saying today? Look at those hateful and stupid communists, apathetic to the suffering of others! Why did they not liberate the Poles and Czechs when they had the chance; they simply left their slavic brothers to their gruesome fate!

Though I know you wish for far more than that. After all, Nazism is the lesser of two evils.

Ich kenne meine pappenheimer bereits.

 

[Kullervo]

The fact that Nazism was the lesser of two evils is very arguable. Both the Soviets and the Nazis were worth one another in those days. Except, as ghoulish as this may sound, the Soviets may have killed twenty million people over Stalin's reign, but the Nazis killed some (10?) million in about a decade. Do the numbers. And there were plenty of Jews and other 'minorities' who survived under Soviet rule that would surely have died under the fascist regime in the Third Reich. Maybe they were imprisoned, and they were treated as second-class citizens. Argue that they were little better off than dead, and that's ok, in some ways I agree with you (half my father's side of the family lived under those conditions; they were Finns, possibly with German roots, and thus 'impure'.) But still, I will claim that life in the Soviet Union (and occupied territories) was better than under the Third Reich).

And please, no accusations of trolling or the actual act of trolling itself, OK? Why close another thread? Pardon me for being a nettiquette nazi (bad choice of words, I know).

 

[Lord Baal]

If you don't expect me to respond then you are simply a troll, throwing out insulting non-quotes and caricatures of peoples' positions.

I'm not a troll, but I'd rather be a troll than an ideologue. At least being troll requires the ability to think for oneself.

What non-quote? As for caricatures, Cheezy, you have made your position as communist ideologue abundantly clear on these forums many times. You actually support Soviet propaganda about the carving up of Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for crying out loud, which as an historian you know damn well is false. Either you are so ideologically invest in communism that you are unable to admit what you know to be true, or you actually believe this stuff. I don't know which is worse.

Anyway, which one of us is defending Nazi racial ideology as being the better of two evils?

Lesser != better. Who's caricaturing another's view now?

People would be better off under Nazi rule for the simple reason that the Nazis would collapse in a decade, whereas the Soviets lasted five of them. Aside from pointing out that Nazi racial ideology meant that many people were classified in such a manner as to be safe from interference by the regime, provided they conformed of course, I have made no claims comparing the records of the two in regards to human rights. They were both terrible.

It matters not whether they had the "long-term capability" to kill all the Slavs, or whether some of them received preferential treatment (how you cannot see the manipulation in that - some Jews received preferential treatment too, before they were exterminated with the rest of their lot); because they were well on their way there by the time the Soviets saved enslaved them.

They were not well on their way at all. The policy of extermination was vastly downsized - though never abandoned - among Slavs who did not otherwise fall into unfavourable categories because the Germans needed their labour far too much to kill them. The fact that they didn't do good job of keeping their labourers happy - or in many cases alive - would only speed the German collapse. Never forget that most foreign workers in Germany during WWII were still volunteers. They could not legally be worked to death, and doing so - or killing them via some other method - led to the punishment of the offenders.

As for your argument about well-treated Jews, of course the Germans planned to eventually do the same to the Slavs under their rule - though not to such extremes, as the Nazis didn't want to exterminate the Slavs entirely - but they wouldn't have had time. Nor the means. A large part of the reason why the deportation and extermination of Jews proceeded so successfully in Eastern Europe was because the general populace assisted, or at least turned a blind eye. It's difficult to see them continuing to do so in large numbers when it was their own necks on the block.

And if the Soviets had done precisely as you say they should, which is to have simply halted at the Polish border and waited the Germans out economically, what would be saying today? Look at those hateful and stupid communists, apathetic to the suffering of others! Why did they not liberate the Poles and Czechs when they had the chance; they simply left their slavic brothers to their gruesome fate!

Well done. Now you re outright lying, and I'll report you for trolling as soon as I've finished typing this post. Show me anywhere where I've said that's what the Soviets should have done.

I fully support the USSR in its invasion of German territory. I disagree strongly with their claims to be liberating the area when they proceeded to rape it just as the Nazis had done. I've already stated in my previous post that it was not a choice between two evils - the Nazis and the Soviets - but rather that the Soviets simply elected to stick around and enslave the people after they'd kicked the Nazis out. They could have allowed democratic elections. Who knows, some of the places they conquered - not liberated - may have even chosen communist governments. Austria, the one place they legitimately did leave afterwards, was quite happy with its socialist government.

Though you're right, if the Russians had halted at the Polish border I'd likely say something of the sort, though without the stupid racialising you've added. After all, it wasn't just Slavs under German domination in the east. I'd rail more against the Soviet untrustworthiness for leaving the Western Allies to do things by themselves. At least I'd give them credit for not violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Though I know you wish for far more than that. After all, Nazism is the lesser of two evils.

Hang on, did you just accuse me of being a Nazi apologist, or worse, a neo-Nazi? You do realise I'm Jewish, right?

But just for fun, how about you tell me what I wish for? After all, you know what I want better than I do, right?

Ich kenne meine pappenheimer bereits.

I don't speak or read German. I only know two of those words, though I recall you using "pappenheimer" pejoratively recently. Care to translate, or are you afraid you'd get in trouble if that were in English?

 

[red_elk]

How about the Balts? Peoples like Czechs and Poles were seen as "redeemable" if they had certain physical characteristics, such as blonde hair and blue eyes, which are hardly uncommon. Even many Russians would be seen as redeemable under these guidelines.

Check WW2 civilian casualties of Slavic countries and republics of the USSR (Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia) and compare them with France or other non-Slavic country. I will help you - Belorussia lost 25% of its pre-war population. After checking, tell me again that Nazi rule would not be too bad for us, and that 3.5 millions of Soviet POWs died in German camps for no reason.

This plan was utterly unworkable. Germany would have collapsed in a decade, no longer. Any competent economist will tell you this.

First of all, any competent economist would not make such predictions. Second, I don't see why such collapse, even if it occurred, would make lives of slaves any better. Third, decade was apparently long enough time for Nazis to exterminate or expel all people that they feel need to.

I'm not talking about formal parlance, but propaganda. Russian claims of liberating Eastern Europe are often extended to areas formally under German control before Hitler's takeover, such as East Prussia and parts of Silesia. Even East Germany.

No they weren't. The borders of the Greater German Reich never extended east beyond the Polish "General Government." They didn't even include Soviet-occupied Poland. The Reich Commissariats, of which there were two - The Ukraine and the "Eastern Land" (parts of Belarus, the Baltic states and a few portions of Russia-proper) - were colonies. They were under German rule, but so was occupied France. They were never considered German territory.

If you are not talking about formal parlance, it doesn't matter if Poland was considered by Nazis as part of Reich or not. Poland was not a part of Germany before war - that's enough.

 

[red_elk]

the Soviets may have killed twenty million people over Stalin's reign

Much less, even if you are going to count people who died because of famines as deliberately killed.

, but the Nazis killed some (10?) million in about a decade.

???
Only in USSR alone, 20-30 millions (estimates vary).

 

[Lord Baal]

Check WW2 civilian casualties of Slavic countries and republics of the USSR (Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia) and compare them with France or other non-Slavic country. I will help you - Belorussia lost 25% of its pre-war population. After checking, tell me again that Nazi rule would not be too bad for us, and that 3.5 millions of Soviet POWs died in German camps for no reason.

There were non-Slavic countries in Eastern Europe you know. I'm hardly sying Nazi rule was better for everyone. It was certainly better for the Germans, and probably the Balts.

First of all, any competent economist would not make such predictions.

Funny, I've seen them do so on these very forums. I've also read books entirely devoted to the Third Reich's economy.

Second, I don't see why such collapse, even if it occurred, would make lives of slaves any better.

Because it would lead to no German or Russian rule? It wouldn't be pretty by any means, but the economic rejuvenation of Eastern Europe would begin far earlier than in OTL.

Third, decade was apparently long enough time for Nazis to exterminate or expel all people that they feel need to.

No, it wasn't. They didn't even succeed in wiping out the Jews in Europe. Do you honestly think they could wipe out 35 million Slavs?

If you are not talking about formal parlance, it doesn't matter if Poland was considered by Nazis as part of Reich or not. Poland was not a part of Germany before war - that's enough.

What? I was referring to claims in Russian propaganda to have "liberated" Europe. Much of the territory they took was German before the war, and other states, like Hungary and Bulgaria, were German allies, not German conquests.

 

[Harvin87]

I don't speak or read German. I only know two of those words, though I recall you using "pappenheimer" pejoratively recently. Care to translate, or are you afraid you'd get in trouble if that were in English?

He means that he knows of what he's speaking about...

 

[red_elk]

There were non-Slavic countries in Eastern Europe you know.

And we were talking about Poland when you joined discussion, aren't we?

I'm hardly sying Nazi rule was better for everyone. It was certainly better for the Germans, and probably the Balts.

I don't know what you want to say by this statement.
It's like saying that slavery was bad for blacks, but it was certainly better for whites and probably asians.

Funny, I've seen them do so on these very forums. I've also read books entirely devoted to the Third Reich's economy.

Just as we see such economists predicting collapse of the USA now.
- Do these books claim to predict economical collapse of Nazi Germany with 100% probability?
- Does such economical collapse necessarily mean political dissolution of Nazi state?
- Does such political breakdown necessarily mean that new government will abandone ideology of racial supremacy and start liberal reforms?

Because it would lead to no German or Russian rule? It wouldn't be pretty by any means, but the economic rejuvenation of Eastern Europe would begin far earlier than in OTL.

Because we don't know what could happen and there is no point in discussing "what if" scenarios? What if USSR was defeated and Germany collapsed in 1945, after USA started nuclear war agains it, turning most of Europe into inhabitable land? Would that be pretty by any means and lead to economic rejuvenation of Eastern Europe?

No, it wasn't. They didn't even succeed in wiping out the Jews in Europe. Do you honestly think they could wipe out 35 million Slavs?

They did wipe out 20-30 millions of people in my country only, mostly Slavs. Several millions in Poland and Yugoslavia. Pretty much completely destroyed Western part of the USSR. I don't care whether such regime was nice to some other ethnicities or not - it had to be destroyed by any cost.

What? I was referring to claims in Russian propaganda to have "liberated" Europe. Much of the territory they took was German before the war, and other states, like Hungary and Bulgaria, were German allies, not German conquests.

And I gave you pictures of medals which state that German and their allies' cities were considered to be captured, not liberated. If you want to criticize presentation, tell what exactly you don't like in it, we can discuss it. Otherwise I don't see a point in discussion of some misty claims from unknown sources.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not a troll, but I'd rather be a troll than an ideologue. At least being troll requires the ability to think for oneself.

Funny to hear that from you, the king-quoter of the "mainstream" historians.

What non-quote? As for caricatures, Cheezy, you have made your position as communist ideologue abundantly clear on these forums many times.

And therefore I must support all communist actions anywhere? That's the caricature, Baal, thank you for proving my point.

You actually support Soviet propaganda about the carving up of Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for crying out loud, which as an historian you know damn well is false.

No, as a historian I have found evidence that supports my thesis. I don't claim to know anything, since I was not there.

Either you are so ideologically invest in communism that you are unable to admit what you know to be true, or you actually believe this stuff. I don't know which is worse.

On the contrary, you are so wrapped up in swallowing mainstream history and the word of rich Harvard historians than in critical thought.

while we're on the subject of caricature, let's address this line by you that claims I support the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia? I'm quite sure I've never addressed the subject in your company, or even on this forum. So why not substantiate this accusation? I'm sure you have lots of evidence to back up your claim.

Or is it simply that I am a communist ideologue and you just assumed that I would support anything and everything any communist has done ever, and justify and defend it till the death of me?

Lesser != better. Who's caricaturing another's view now?

Do I really have to explain to you what this phrase means?

People would be better off under Nazi rule for the simple reason that the Nazis would collapse in a decade, whereas the Soviets lasted five of them.

Are you making the case that the Soviet Union between 1933 and 1989 was as bad as Nazi Germany?

And you think I'm the one wrapped up in falsehoods.

Aside from pointing out that Nazi racial ideology meant that many people were classified in such a manner as to be safe from interference by the regime, provided they conformed of course, I have made no claims comparing the records of the two in regards to human rights. They were both terrible.

You have claimed that Nazi Germany was less bad.

They were not well on their way at all. The policy of extermination was vastly downsized - though never abandoned - among Slavs who did not otherwise fall into unfavourable categories because the Germans needed their labour far too much to kill them.

Labor that worked them to death because the Nazis had no regard for them at all. Millions died in German labor camps. Tens of millions died in the Western cities of the USSR and Eastern Europe, again, because the people occupying them regarded them as not even human. Even if they never had a policy of extermination (which they did), that alone would make the Nazis worse than the Soviets, who were at least in principle laboring to make all men equal.

The fact that they didn't do good job of keeping their labourers happy - or in many cases alive - would only speed the German collapse. Never forget that most foreign workers in Germany during WWII were still volunteers. They could not legally be worked to death, and doing so - or killing them via some other method - led to the punishment of the offenders.

Yeah I'm sure all those Slavs volunteered to go work in Germany.

As for your argument about well-treated Jews, of course the Germans planned to eventually do the same to the Slavs under their rule - though not to such extremes, as the Nazis didn't want to exterminate the Slavs entirely - but they wouldn't have had time. Nor the means. A large part of the reason why the deportation and extermination of Jews proceeded so successfully in Eastern Europe was because the general populace assisted, or at least turned a blind eye. It's difficult to see them continuing to do so in large numbers when it was their own necks on the block.

It doesn't matter if they had the capability to finish the job, because they sure as hell started the job and intended to finish it. It was their main purpose for invading the Soviet Union in the first place.

Well done. Now you re outright lying, and I'll report you for trolling as soon as I've finished typing this post. Show me anywhere where I've said that's what the Soviets should have done.

Here.

Considering the Reich's economy was so bad it would have collapsed in a decade - no more - most non-Jews may actually have been better off under the Germans than 50 years of Soviet rule. But this is a ridiculous strawman, Cheezy, since it was the Germans who attacked the Russians, not the other way around. The Russians invaded enemy territory when they entered German-controlled Poland - literally, as a matter of fact, since it was included in the Greater German Reich. They were no more liberating it than they liberated Prussia.

Given the above criticism, just what exactly do you expect the Soviets to have done?

I fully support the USSR in its invasion of German territory. I disagree strongly with their claims to be liberating the area when they proceeded to rape it just as the Nazis had done. I've already stated in my previous post that it was not a choice between two evils - the Nazis and the Soviets - but rather that the Soviets simply elected to stick around and enslave the people after they'd kicked the Nazis out.

You really expect them to surrender territory to the capitalist West? This is about as likely as the USA conquering Eastern Europe and letting the communists have a chance at getting power back.

As for this "enslavement" line, I should not have expected more from someone who's supposedly such a scholar as to be writing his own book. Makes me wonder about the quality of a great many other historical scholars.

They could have allowed democratic elections. Who knows, some of the places they conquered - not liberated - may have even chosen communist governments. Austria, the one place they legitimately did leave afterwards, was quite happy with its socialist government.

That government was about as socialist as Britain's.

Hang on, did you just accuse me of being a Nazi apologist, or worse, a neo-Nazi? You do realise I'm Jewish, right?

I don't give a good god damn what you are, the position you are espousing is that Nazism was better than communism.

But just for fun, how about you tell me what I wish for? After all, you know what I want better than I do, right?

You want Nazi Germany to have crushed the USSR and then the Western allies to magically beat Nazi Germany. Or, as you seem to think, it would have collapsed all by itself, leaving Eastern Europe happy as a bug in a rug.

After all, a few years of Nazism is better than many years of evil communism. Good luck denying having said that one.

I don't speak or read German. I only know two of those words, though I recall you using "pappenheimer" pejoratively recently. Care to translate, or are you afraid you'd get in trouble if that were in English?

Master historian knows not the meaning of this phrase? Perish the thought! All those books about Germany gone to waste.

 

[LightSpectra]

You really expect them to surrender territory to the capitalist West?

Apparently, letting the people of a nation decide, on their own merit, what manner of government and society they'd like is capitulation.

If communism is great and desirable, then why couldn't the Soviets have let people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than shoving it down their throats with a military occupation and fixed elections?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Apparently, letting the people of a nation decide, on their own merit, what manner of government and society they'd like is capitulation.

Nationalism is a disease propagated by the wealthy and swallowed by the masses. When such a virulent infection as this exists, to expect people to make a "fair" decision is like waving ice cream and asparagus in front of a child and expecting them to make the best decision about their health.

If communism is great and desirable, then why couldn't the Soviets have let people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than shoving it down their throats with a military occupation and fixed elections?

A great question to be asked about capitalist imperialism the world over.

 

[LightSpectra]

Nationalism is a disease propagated by the wealthy and swallowed by the masses. When such a virulent infection as this exists, to expect people to make a "fair" decision is like waving ice cream and asparagus in front of a child and expecting them to make the best decision about their health.

Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. I'm a proponent of liberal nationalism; that either means I've swallowed a great deal of propaganda, or I'm a malicious author of it. If I attempt to escape either proposition, you can easily classify me as being guilty of one of them. If there was any possibility that your beliefs were wrong, how would I possibly demonstrate it?

Now, I have a question. What is the final goal of government? Is it the happiness of the citizens, or something else?

A great question to be asked about capitalist imperialism the world over.

When the Soviets plundered all of the East German industry, was that in their capacity as communists, or because they reverted to imperial capitalism for a moment?

 

[red_elk]

If communism is great and desirable, then why couldn't the Soviets have let people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than shoving it down their throats with a military occupation and fixed elections?

If liberal democracy is great and desirable, then why couldn't Americans have let Vietnamese people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than starting war against spreading of "evil ideology", killing hundreds of thousands of them?

 

[LightSpectra]

If liberal democracy is great and desirable, then why couldn't Americans have let Vietnamese people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than starting war against spreading of "evil ideology", killing hundreds of thousands of them?

Because the war was that of the North Vietnamese, who were communist, attempting without pause to force their beliefs undo the South Vietnamese, who were not. I am of the opinion that war to protect a weaker faction from being oppressed by a stronger one is just.