The Savage Peace, the Forgotten atrocity of WWII

Alizrian Crimson

So I watched 'The Savage Peace' the other night. It's about the atrocities inflicted upon the Germans by the Soviets and other Eastern Europeans. I was well aware the Soviets committed war rape upon the German population but I had little understanding of the ethnic cleansing of the German minorities in countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland. Millions tortured and murdered, women and children held in rape camps. These weren't German colonists but ethnic Germans who had lived in these regions for hundreds of years. They were civilians for the large part.

Some will say the Germans deserved it but does a young girl deserve to be raped to death for the crimes of SS men?

Why don't we talk about this? Why wasn't I taught this in school?

The documentary is still available on the RTE player (I think) and I urge you to watch it. The line between the good and bad guys is very thin.

Donald Trump

Did you not get the memo about not mentioning the War?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

Roger Hassenforder

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I watched 'The Savage Peace' the other night.

The documentary is still available on the RTE player (I think) and I urge you to watch it. The line between the good and bad guys is very thin.

Moving programme all right.
What struck me was the cruelty the Czechs (and others) visited on kids and people for merely speaking German, and the hatred that old lady outside the snowy gate still had.
Had never heard of the ethnic cleansing or the concentration camps they were put into.
Well worth watching.

fergiesfolly

I had read before about the crimes committed upon ethnic Germans in eastern Europe. But as in all wars, the victor writes the history and these people were always unlikely to have the same sypathy availed to them as the victims of German oppression.

Haven't seen this documentary OP.
Was there much mention of the treatment by ethnic Germans in eastern Europe towards the indigenous people, once the Nazi's took power

Lyle Lanley

There were no good guys, despite what the Brits and yanks like to portray.

neverever1

The bombing of Dresden was a horrible, disgusting act.

Roger Hassenforder

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Was there much mention of the treatment by ethnic Germans in eastern Europe towards the indigenous people, once the Nazi's took power

it was what was done to them after the war was over

Roger Hassenforder

its on youtube.

b_mac2

Plenty of dirty communist/Soviet supporters on here, hopefully they'll be along soon to explain these actions better for us stupid fascists.

mikeybrennan

b_mac2 wrote: »

Plenty of dirty communist/Soviet supporters on here, hopefully they'll be along soon to explain these actions better for us stupid fascists.

Decent Trollbait to get the ball rolling

Alizrian Crimson

Plenty of them over on Politics.ie saying the Germans deserved it. Those people will certainly enjoy this documentary.

Largest ethnic cleansing in human history and most outside Germany probably have no idea it happened.

The Pheasant2

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Largest ethnic cleansing in human history and most outside Germany probably have no idea it happened.

Larger than the holocaust?

neverever1

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Larger than the holocaust?

I think starving 7 million Indians to death means the brits win this 'honour'.

Irish Praetorian

Lyle Lanley wrote: »

There were no good guys, despite what the Brits and yanks like to portray.

No 'good guys' seems fair, but there are less bad guys certainly.

Jimoslimos

I think the attitude of many of the Anglophone countries galls many Europeans when it comes to the world wars. Undoubtedly all countries suffered enormous casualties, but for the British, American, and Australians the vast majority of these were military (the Blitz, Pearl Harbour, etc, aside). The war in Europe had a far greater impact on civilians.

People in Europe saw the good, bad and ugly side of soldiers and occupying forces (Allied, Soviets, and Nazis). People in Britain and the US only heard the good - and have been celebrating that fact ever since.

odyssey06

It's what happens when you start a savage war and then don't surrender when you've clearly lost the war and are incapable of defending your citizens anymore...

The Germans lost World War One, they didn't accept it, they started World War Two... they can't say they didn't lose that one when their cities were flattened and homelands invaded... no coincidence after that there's been no attempt on their part to start a World War Three.

As for the occupying forces of the Allies, ask yourself would you have preferred to be under Soviet occupation rather than Anglo-American-Commonwealth? Anyone who picks the Soviets is either a fool or a "useful idiot".

The Anglo-American alliance were the "good guys" in World War Two, as much as any side could ever be the "good guys" in a total war - they were all that stood between civilization versus tyranny and darkness.

odyssey06

Jimoslimos wrote: »

People in Europe saw the good, bad and ugly side of soldiers and occupying forces (Allied, Soviets, and Nazis). People in Britain and the US only heard the good - and have been celebrating that fact ever since.

Had it not been for the Anglo-American forces, all the people of Europe would have seen for generations would have been the bad and the ugly.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's what happens when you start a savage war and then don't surrender when you've clearly lost the war and are incapable of defending your citizens anymore...

The Germans lost World War One, they didn't accept it, they started World War Two... they can't say they didn't lose that one when their cities were flattened and homelands invaded... no coincidence after that there's been no attempt on their part to start a World War Three.

As for the occupying forces of the Allies, ask yourself would you have preferred to be under Soviet occupation rather than Anglo-American-Commonwealth? Anyone who picks the Soviets is either a fool or a "useful idiot".

The Anglo-American alliance were the "good guys" in World War Two, as much as any side could ever be the "good guys" in a total war - they were all that stood between civilization versus tyranny and darkness.

The nazis could only dream about the evils reached by the british empire!

odyssey06

Jimoslimos wrote: »

People in Britain and the US only heard the good - and have been celebrating that fact ever since.

The Soviet name for World War Two was "The Great Patriotic War".

France celebrates 70 years of the liberation of Paris:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11053722/Paris-to-celebrate-70-years-since-liberation-from-Nazi-occupation-with-little-contribution-from-US-or-UK.html

odyssey06

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Plenty of them over on Politics.ie saying the Germans deserved it. Those people will certainly enjoy this documentary.
Largest ethnic cleansing in human history and most outside Germany probably have no idea it happened.

I don't know if the Germans 'deserved' it. But they clearly brought terrible retribution back on themselves by fighting a war on the Eastern front without rules... did they think if they lost the war the Soviets would treat them as nicely as the Western Allies did as Versailles?

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

The bombing of Dresden was a horrible, disgusting act.

Would I have signed off on that attack... maybe, maybe not... do I understand why the men who flew that mission wanted to flatten a German city after watching the Germans try to do the same to London, Coventry, Liverpool etc?
Yes, I do.

Zebra3

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's what happens when you start a savage war and then don't surrender when you've clearly lost the war and are incapable of defending your citizens anymore...

The Germans lost World War One, they didn't accept it, they started World War Two... they can't say they didn't lose that one when their cities were flattened and homelands invaded... no coincidence after that there's been no attempt on their part to start a World War Three.

As for the occupying forces of the Allies, ask yourself would you have preferred to be under Soviet occupation rather than Anglo-American-Commonwealth? Anyone who picks the Soviets is either a fool or a "useful idiot".

The Anglo-American alliance were the "good guys" in World War Two, as much as any side could ever be the "good guys" in a total war - they were all that stood between civilization versus tyranny and darkness.

The Anglo-American alliance was one through out history that destroyed civilisations. Genocide against the natives of North America, Australia, and India for starters.

Saw an interview with an African-American who fought in WWII.

"I went to Europe to fight facism, defeated it, and then came home to fight it again".

The Brits were running concentration camps in Kenya and starving millions to death in India in the 1940s.

The idea that either of those countries were some sort of civilised states is nothing but repugnant propaganda.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

Would I have signed off on that attack... maybe, maybe not... do I understand why the men who flew that mission wanted to flatten a German city after watching the Germans try to do the same to London, Coventry, Liverpool etc?
Yes, I do.

So you're ok with the murder of thousands of civilians?

odyssey06

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Anglo-American alliance was one through out history that destroyed civilisations. Genocide against the natives of North America, Australia, and India for starters.

Saw an interview with an African-American who fought in WWII.
"I went to Europe to fight facism, defeated it, and then came home to fight it again".

The Brits were running concentration camps in Kenya and starving millions to death in India in the 1940s.

The idea that either of those countries were some sort of civilised states is nothing but repugnant propaganda.

What happened those African-Americans? The Americans put them into uniforms. Within a generation the civil rights act was passed, within another generation we have African-American politicians and in the next generation an African-American president.

Don't even begin to compare 'concentration camps' used by Britain in their strict sense - to concentrate people in camps, versus the deliberate extermination camps run by the Nazis.

The Nazis didn't put their minorities into uniform, or treat them as second class citizens. They didn't treat them as citizens or even as humans. If the Nazis had gotten their hands on the African-Americans there would be no Martin Luther King, no Jesse Jackson, no Barack Obama.

You deserve to live in a universe ala Man in the High Castle where the Nazis won. I think that would quickly lead to an appreciation of the civilized qualities of the Anglo-American alliance.

Humanity is fortunate that at a crucial point in our history, we had people of the calibre of Churchill, Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower to hold the line for the nations representing freedom and democracy against tyranny.

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

So you're ok with the murder of thousands of civilians?

Whatever it was, it was not murder.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

What happened those African-Americans? The Americans put them into uniforms. Within a generation the civil rights act was passed, within another generation we have African-American politicians and in the next generation an African-American president.

Don't even begin to compare 'concentration camps' used by Britain in their strict sense - to concentrate people in camps, versus the deliberate extermination camps run by the Nazis.

The Nazis didn't put their minorities into uniform, or treat them as second class citizens. They didn't treat them as citizens or even as humans. If the Nazis had gotten their hands on the African-Americans there would be no Martin Luther King, no Jesse Jackson, no Barack Obama.

You deserve to live in a universe ala Man in the High Castle where the Nazis won.

Who was the first Aboriginal prime minister of Australia? They were treated like absolute dirt and it was a law that they could be. This didn't change till long after Hitler died so it wasn't him that caused this, who was it?
And thousands died in British concentration camps, mostly women and children.

Zebra3

odyssey06 wrote: »

What happened those African-Americans? The Americans put them into uniforms. Within a generation the civil rights act was passed, within another generation we have African-American politicians and in the next generation an African-American president.

Don't even begin to compare 'concentration camps' used by Britain in their strict sense - to concentrate people in camps, versus the deliberate extermination camps run by the Nazis.

The Nazis didn't put their minorities into uniform, or treat them as second class citizens. They didn't treat them as citizens or even as humans. If the Nazis had gotten their hands on the African-Americans there would be no Martin Luther King, no Jesse Jackson, no Barack Obama.

You deserve to live in a universe ala Man in the High Castle where the Nazis won. I think that would quickly lead to an appreciation of the civilized qualities of the Anglo-American alliance.

Humanity is fortunate that at a crucial point in our history, we had people of the calibre of Churchill, Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower to hold the line for the nations representing freedom and democracy against tyranny.

So they were civilised nations?

I see you decided not to comment on the British genocide in India. Bit of an inconvenience those millions of skeletons, eh? :rolleyes:

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

Whatever it was, it was not murder.

There was no justification, it was cold blooded murder. 25,000 dead!

Zebra3

odyssey06 wrote: »

Whatever it was, it was not murder.

War crimes would be more accurate.

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

There was no justification, it was cold blooded murder. 25,000 dead!

It was perhaps needless, but cold blooded murder is herding civilians into gas chambers and exterminating them... or starving them to death as they work in concentration camps.

It's not flying a bomber under attack from anti aircraft fire and other air defences. No all those bombers made it back home that night.

What did the Germans think after the Blitz, that the Brits weren't going to bomb their cities?

odyssey06

Zebra3 wrote: »

So they were civilised nations?

I see you decided not to comment on the British genocide in India. Bit of an inconvenience those millions of skeletons, eh? :rolleyes:

It wasn't genocide. The British did not want Indians to die. The Nazis wanted the Jews to die. Massive difference which seems to escape some people who cannot recognise true evil when it appears and seem to imagine it's possible to defeat countries like Germany and Japan whilst at the same time conducting oneself as a perfect gentleman.

The ultimate people responsible for the Indian famine during World War Two were the nations that started it - Germany and Japan.
The war is why the British attention, shipping and resources that would have prevented famine in India during the war were elsewhere.

After the war, India was free, thanks to the efforts of Gandhi. Had a Jewish Gandhi tried a similar non violent approach against the Nazis he would have ended up in Belsen.
That's the difference between civilisation and tyranny.

And why, for all their faults, the world should be eternally thankful for the sacrifices and efforts of the Anglo-American alliance.

You want to see gencocide in India? Imagine if it had fallen into the hands of Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire?

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

It was perhaps needless, but cold blooded murder is herding civilians into gas chambers and exterminating them... or starving them to death as they work in concentration camps.

It's not flying a bomber under attack from anti aircraft fire and other air defences. No all those bombers made it back home that night.

What did the Germans think after the Blitz, that the Brits weren't going to bomb their cities?

So at least you admit that the British did commit cold blooded murder in India. Millions dead from starvation.

Ulysses Gaze

I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.-Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time and today has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

Quote from Robert McNamara from The Fog of War

Winners shape history.

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

So at least you admit that the British did commit cold blooded murder in India. Millions dead from starvation.

At the time millions died in India, Britain itself was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, a desperate battle to keep the supply lines open with food, fuel, weapons and men between America, Canada and Britain.
Supply lines vital to the eventual liberation of Europe.

Other supply lines were needed to engage the Nazis and Italians in the Mediteranean.
To supply Australia and hold off the Japanese.

The blood in India is on the hands of the Germans and Japanese.

Had Britain not been fighting a global world war, pushed to the very limits of its resources and capabilities, there would have been no famine in India.

Alizrian Crimson

Google 'lost German girl 1945'. Her face haunts me.

odyssey06

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Quote from Robert McNamara from The Fog of War
Winners shape history.

Strange... you edited out the quote where Curtis LeMay said "All war is immoral", by doing so you make it appear as though he thought these actions were immortal in particular...

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

It wasn't genocide. The British did not want Indians to die. The Nazis wanted the Jews to die. Massive difference which seems to escape some people who cannot recognise true evil when it appears and seem to imagine it's possible to defeat countries like Germany and Japan whilst at the same time conducting oneself as a perfect gentleman.

The ultimate people responsible for the Indian famine during World War Two were the nations that started it - Germany and Japan.
The war is why the British attention, shipping and resources that would have prevented famine in India during the war were elsewhere.

After the war, India was free, thanks to the efforts of Gandhi. Had a Jewish Gandhi tried a similar non violent approach against the Nazis he would have ended up in Belsen.
That's the difference between civilisation and tyranny.

Who are these quotes from?

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

"Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting. We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."

No, it's not Hitler. It's British hero Winston Churchill. He blamed the Indians for mass starvation because they "bred like rabbits".

Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!

By equating the actions of the British with the actions of the Nazis, you diminish the scale of what the Nazis did.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

At the time millions died in India, Britain itself was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, a desperate battle to keep the supply lines open with food, fuel, weapons and men between America, Canada and Britain.
Supply lines vital to the eventual liberation of Europe.

Other supply lines were needed to engage the Nazis and Italians in the Mediteranean.
To supply Australia and hold off the Japanese.

The blood in India is on the hands of the Germans and Japanese.

Had Britain not been fighting a global world war, pushed to the very limits of its resources and capabilities, there would have been no famine in India.

So many times the British killed millions, caused misery, raped, slaughtered, destroyed whole nations yet it was never their fault in some people's views! Always someone else's fault.

Ulysses Gaze

odyssey06 wrote: »

Strange... you edited out the quote where Curtis LeMay said "All war is immoral", by doing so you make it appear as though he thought these actions were immortal in particular...

I'm sorry I did not include the entire transcript of the documentary interview for you.

But surely the quote - "But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" would make it clear that that is what is meant.......

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

So many times the British killed millions, caused misery, raped, slaughtered, destroyed whole nations yet it was never their fault in some people's views! Always someone else's fault.

I don't remember the British destroying any nations in World War Two except the ones that had it coming.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

By equating the actions of the British with the actions of the Nazis, you diminish the scale of what the Nazis did.

As I've already said, the nazis could only dream of reaching such evils as the British inflicted!

You missed the rest of my post, here ya go:

Who are these quotes from?

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

"Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting. We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."

No, it's not Hitler. It's British hero Winston Churchill. He blamed the Indians for mass starvation because they "bred like rabbits".

Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!

wakka12

Certainly was taught in school. I know lots about it from secondary school. Its pretty common knowledge also I would have thought anyway.

neverever1

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't remember the British destroying any nations in World War Two except the ones that had it coming.

You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.

wakka12

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think the attitude of many of the Anglophone countries galls many Europeans when it comes to the world wars. Undoubtedly all countries suffered enormous casualties, but for the British, American, and Australians the vast majority of these were military (the Blitz, Pearl Harbour, etc, aside). The war in Europe had a far greater impact on civilians.

People in Europe saw the good, bad and ugly side of soldiers and occupying forces (Allied, Soviets, and Nazis). People in Britain and the US only heard the good - and have been celebrating that fact ever since.

Don't forget the Filipinos and Chinese. Arguably suffered the worst of everyone in the war bar the jewish people. Japanese were brutal occupiers

odyssey06

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I'm sorry I did not include the entire transcript of the documentary interview for you.

But surely the quote - "But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" would make it clear that that is what is meant.......

I think if you read more of what he said, I think it is clear that Curtis LeMay did not think his actions were immoral. He seemed to be referring more to the 'court of public opinion'.
Everything I have read of LeMay shows him to be entirely unapologetic or concerned about his actions during World War Two. That does not make his actions right - but it does mean I think he's a very bad choice if you're trying to quote him in that way.

Alizrian Crimson

I know all that but I never knew the full suffering of the German people.

wakka12

neverever1 wrote: »

So you're ok with the murder of thousands of civilians?

Maybe it saved hundreds of thousands more by stopping the war. Total war comes with consequences for all. Everyone made mistakes. Lets not blame the side who didnt start the war. Play with fire and all

odyssey06

neverever1 wrote: »

You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.

Not in the slightest. That is why the victory of the Anglo-American alliance is something we should all be very relieved and thankful for. There was lots of blood thirst shown in 1939, 1940 and 1941. None of it by the Anglo-Americans, all of it by the Nazis, Italians and Japanese.
It took the Blitz, the Battle of the Atlantic, Coventry, Pearl Harbor to awaken the thirst for retribution of the Anglo-Americans.
But once their enemies laid down their arms, the British and Americans did not conduct a savage war of extermination against the former enemies, who now lay defenceless to their military.

Britain maintained rationing for years after WW2 ended, because they had to divert food resources to Germany.
The US initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild devastated European countries - including Germany and Italy.

Those are not the actions of a blood thirsty people.

wakka12

neverever1 wrote: »

You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.

If the allies played nice while hitler didnt then it would have cost them the war. Hitler had no respect for civilian life in other countries so why have respect for his people who ,at least outside looking in, seemed to largely support his regime

neverever1

wakka12 wrote: »

Maybe it saved hundreds of thousands more by stopping the war. Total war comes with consequences for all. Everyone made mistakes. Lets not blame the side who didnt start the war. Play with fire and all

It's amazing how some people can justify the murder of thousands of people. You can use your excuse for any genocide the world over, yeah it was bad but it could save other lives.