Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

75 years ago today....

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    fryup wrote: »
    as the old saying goes...

    "what goes around comes around"

    You have no sympathy for British and American victims of the war due to their history of fascism?


  • Options
    #153
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    fryup wrote: »
    as the old saying goes...

    "what goes around comes around"
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    You have no sympathy for British and American victims of the war due to their history of fascism?

    as the other old saying goes...

    "All is fair in love and war"


  • Options
    #154
    Jimbob1977
    Registered Users Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭Jimbob1977


    It was a war of annihilation.

    Make no mistake - if the Germans or Japanese developed the atomic bomb first, they would have zero qualms about using it.

    Or extending their slave labour camps and concentration camps around the world.

    The Germans feel shame because they lost and their crimes were highlighted. If they kept on winning, they would have slaughtered entire races.


  • Options
    #155
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    fryup wrote: »
    as the other old saying goes...

    "All is fair in love and war"
    I always thought it should be the other way around.

    'Nothing is fair in love and war'.:o


  • Options
    #156
    SharpshooterTom
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    Jimbob1977 wrote: »
    The Germans feel shame because they lost and their crimes were highlighted. If they kept on winning, they would have slaughtered entire races.

    Sorry but this is wrong. You're implying the vast majority of the German population somehow have no empathy for others.

    Ordinary Germans don't actually look at it as if they lost the war, they look at it as if they themselves were saved by the Allies from the Nazi regime.

    Germany has apologised profusely to Poland over the years, have the Russians ever apologised for their role in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in the destruction of Poland? They sure seemed bit touchy about it when the Ukraine president accused them of co-starting WW2 in Europe.

    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-angry-over-ukraine-presidents-nazi-collusion-remark/a-52179894

    Some of the posts on this thread are pretty shocking, even on British forum where this is posted the comments aren't as mean spirited.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    ThomasFlynn wrote: »
    Ordinary Germans don't actually look at it as if they lost the war, they look at it as if they themselves were saved by the Allies from the Nazi regime.

    Today maybe - but not in 1945!


  • Options
    #158
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,180 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    ThomasFlynn wrote: »
    ISIS =/= Ordinary muslim civilians

    Yazidis and local Christians noted how hitherto friendly Moslem neighbours became merciless persecutors, plunderers and slavers. The idea that Islamic State were a few bad man in black is not supportable by evidence. The tardiness with which the Syrian government is allowing back Sunni Moslems into, say, Aleppo who substantially backed IS, is understandable, although not right. A big, big issue with civil war ranging from the Irish War of Independence to various conflicts involving radical Islamists, and so many others, is that the exact boundary between civilian and combatant wasn't clear.

    Relating specifically to the Dresden bombing and other WW2 bombings of Axis cities, the Third Reich was built on an electoral victory, while Japan was a constitutional monarchy, and so was Italy, albeit with stymied institutions, but the King was able to dismiss Mussolini when he failed. Now a widespread complicity doesn't justify mass atrocity against a population group supporting evildoers, but wars for survival have never been gentle. WW2 was one such war


  • Options
    #159
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    ThomasFlynn wrote: »
    Ordinary Germans don't actually look at it as if they lost the war, they look at it as if they themselves were saved by the Allies from the Nazi regime.

    The reality is that the Germans got carried along by the war just as much as everyone else. Not a single German voted for Hitler or the nazis based on a platform of war. Not even the most devoted of party members. The idea of another war was the furthest thing from German minds in the 30's. They just wanted their country out of the doldrums it was in and nobody was giving them answers. But, by 1939, there was nothing anyone in the country could do about it.

    That doesn't mean that there wasn't anyone who was supportive of the war when it came and during it too, there was. But it's interesting to note that nobody in Germany celebrated on the 1st September 1939 and nobody was celebrating on the 8th May 1945 either.


  • Options
    #160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That doesn't mean that there wasn't anyone who was supportive of the war when it came and during it too, there was. But it's interesting to note that nobody in Germany celebrated on the 1st September 1939 and nobody was celebrating on the 8th May 1945 either.

    There's also a lot of hindsight nowadays when it comes to war. We're raised with the images from TV/movies etc which show the horrors of war, and those who engage in Anti-war movements tend to be heard quite often through various mediums.

    In the 1930s or in 1939, it depended on whether you had someone still alive from the First World war to tell/educate you on the horrors of the war. Even then, there was a remnant of the old guard which glorified the pursuit of war as being honorable and glorious.. The start of WW2 is full of examples where German/British/French officers treated each other with respect/honor, in reflection of the older way of warfare.

    There's very little of that which survived WW2. Instead, there's a horror with regards to large conventional actions. Vietnam reinforced that for many people, even those who weren't American, French or Vietnamese.


  • Options
    #161
    archer22
    Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭archer22


    History is always written by the Victors and the vanquished have no choice but to agree with them and endure what they must.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There's also a lot of hindsight nowadays when it comes to war. We're raised with the images from TV/movies etc which show the horrors of war, and those who engage in Anti-war movements tend to be heard quite often through various mediums.

    I was kid raised on the soft propaganda of TV WWII. Comic books too, the likes of which we'll never see again, like 'Warlord' and 'Battle'. But, I had my parents there to tell me the real version, so even at a tender age with a head filled up with 'Where Eagles Dare' and 'Union Jack Jackson', I was still getting a healthy counter balance that pointed out what was fiction and what was not.

    These days, yes there's a lot of hindsight and much of it is cheap. But I also find that there's plenty of younger folk that are relatively well read on, at least the text of the war. Sadly, people to actually talk to who were around during the 40's are becoming fewer and fewer.

    There will always be those, however, that'll read one or two books and think they know it all though.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    In the 1930s or in 1939, it depended on whether you had someone still alive from the First World war to tell/educate you on the horrors of the war. Even then, there was a remnant of the old guard which glorified the pursuit of war as being honorable and glorious.. The start of WW2 is full of examples where German/British/French officers treated each other with respect/honor, in reflection of the older way of warfare.

    Military tradition runs deep in Europe, especially amongst aristocratic families and dynasties. The old Prussian, upper classes, whose families could trace their military activity back to the Tutons would be a prime example. They had an outdated standard of "honour" in war, even by WWI. But a lot of that attitude carried over into WWII as well. There are many accounts of soldiers on all sides who would give quarter and even co-operate in certain circumstances, right up to the bitter end.

    For instance, the U-Bootwaffe, often vilified as nazis during and after the war (despite having a very low number of actual nazis among their ranks) ran as clean a war as they could based on old fashioned sea rules that had spanned all navies for many years. There are numerous accounts of U-Boat crews providing survivors of with compasses, maps, directions and food after they sunk a ship. For the first year of the war, the standard was to surface wait for the crew to abandon ship and then sink her. The Q Ships put an end to that particular point of chivalrous behaviour, for obvious reasons. But even later in the war, there accounts of decent behaviour amongst enemies.

    There are numerous accounts too from the land forces and air forces as well, but unfortunately these stories tend to get lost in the quagmire of the historical record. Even more unfortunately, as we go on, the historical record will become more and more simplified too.

    Over my years of reading about the wars of the first half of the 20th Century, it still remains a pleasure to see accounts whereby, even in the devastation of combat where people face the most extreme circumstances, people can still engage with their humanity at times.


  • Options
    #163
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    archer22 wrote: »
    History is always written by the Victors...

    I usually read books on history written by qualified academics and historians with loads of letters after their names.
    Very few of them, as far as I'm aware, were ever victors, although some of them did fight in wars, including the Second World War.


  • Options
    #164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]




    worth a watch.


  • Options
    #165
    Dan133269
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Dan133269


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not strictly true. It was the "race laws" that reduced much of the rape by the military since to have sex with those of lesser "quality" was a death sentence. However, the Germans did rape women across Europe, especially when you look at the "administrators" or camp officers who abused those under their control. It could also be argued that the women in occupied zones who became mistresses often had little choice in their situations, and that could be an argument about rape.

    Saying that though, Soldiers from all the nations did the same. The French and American forces were highlighted on a number of occasions for the amount of rape during and after offenses. Naturally the Russian conscripts were the worst.

    What do you mean naturally the Russians were the worst? Is there something in their culture or genetics that makes them more prone to committing these crimes? Genuine question.

    And I'm not asking for examples of when they committed such atrocities, I'm asking what is it that makes them in particular more likely to do so, because of the word "naturally."


  • Options
    #166
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Dan133269 wrote: »
    What do you mean naturally the Russians were the worst? Is there something in their culture or genetics that makes them more prone to committing these crimes? Genuine question.

    And I'm not asking for examples of when they committed such atrocities, I'm asking what is it that makes them in particular more likely to do so, because of the word "naturally."

    I would disagree with word "naturally" that Klaz used. But I think he was using it more in the sense of "naturally we know this because it's been well accounted."

    If we are too look at just why there was so much rape amongst Russian troops, you need to look to Ilya Ehrenburg who was supposed to have urged Red Army troops to take women as "booty". When your leaders aren't going to prosecute you for warcrimes, the chances are that the more nefarious elements amongst troops (which are microcosm of humanity) will indulge in their base desires.

    However, we must be careful when we say "Russian troops". The vast majority of Red Army personnel didn't engage in the widespread rape that characterised the advance into Eastern Europe in 44/45. For instance, among frontline troops it was quite rare. Among the occupation troops and 2nd/3rd line, which followed up the frontline personnel, it was far more widespread.

    But, this type of activity wasn't limited to Russian troops. There are many accounts of rape from the Vietnam war too and if you dig deep enough, from the western allies in the Second World War.

    What it ultimately comes down to is opportunity and the likelihood that you'll get away with it.


  • Options
    #167
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dan133269 wrote: »
    What do you mean naturally the Russians were the worst? Is there something in their culture or genetics that makes them more prone to committing these crimes? Genuine question.

    By that stage in the war, the majority of Russian infantry forces were made up of conscripts taken from rural areas. Extremely little education (if any), brainwashed to see the enemy as animals, etc. Their march across Poland, Eastern Germany etc was a march of rape, and pillage. [edit: I guess I need to bold certain words to make sure they're seen]
    And I'm not asking for examples of when they committed such atrocities, I'm asking what is it that makes them in particular more likely to do so, because of the word "naturally."

    I used naturally because of the aspect of being forcibly conscripted... angry at being conscripted and marched into the guns of a technologically advanced enemy. We've all seen the various movies of Stalingrad where one soldier is given a rifle, and the other, the ammo... with political officers marching behind to shoot anyone to refused to carry out an order. The Russian conscript forces were brutally treated by both the Germans and their own people, which tended to encourage greater aggression when they were released from their leash.


  • Options
    #168
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I would disagree with word "naturally" that Klaz used. But I think he was using it more in the sense of "naturally we know this because it's been well accounted."

    I used the word naturally intentionally, as I did the word conscripts. I could have said Russian forces, if I wanted to describe the whole Russian military machine. But as you've said, it's well documented, how the conscript forces behaved, in comparison to the more professional units.


  • Options
    #169
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Deleted User wrote: »
    We've all seen the various movies of Stalingrad where one soldier is given a rifle, and the other, the ammo... with political officers marching behind to shoot anyone to refused to carry out an order.

    Which, by the way, is Hollywood (or wherever it came from) bullshit. Not the commissar bit, but they had more than enough guns.


  • Options
    #170
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is Hollywood (or wherever it came from) bullshit. Not the commissar bit, but they had more than enough guns.

    True enough, but it reinforces the brutality applied to them. Although to be fair, enough guns doesn't say that they had modern weaponry. Elite and the more professional units (or politically loyal) would have had first dibs on the better weaponry.


  • Options
    #171
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Deleted User wrote: »
    True enough, but it reinforces the brutality applied to them. Although to be fair, enough guns doesn't say that they had modern weaponry. Elite and the more professional units (or politically loyal) would have had first dibs on the better weaponry.

    Initially yes, it was very politically focused, and the results of that are shown starkly in Finland.

    Once Zhukov came in though, and especially after the commissars messed up in Crimea, they had far less influence, and the better equipment starting going to the shock troops, those who would be on the offensive.

    Almost everyone was still using bolt-action rifles at this point, I don't think the Mosins are too badly thought of.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Tony EH wrote: »
    But, this type of activity wasn't limited to Russian troops. There are many accounts of rape from the Vietnam war too and if you dig deep enough, from the western allies in the Second World War.

    The number of incidents of rape carried out by soldiers of the Western Allies did not compare to the number of such crimes carried out by Soviet army members. Whataboutery.


  • Options
    #173
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    The number of incidents of rape carried out by soldiers of the Western Allies did not compare to the number of such crimes carried out by Soviet army members. Whataboutery.

    Oh come on, it's extra context. A good discussion is not whataboutery, in fact talking about rape at all could be considered whataboutery, given the subject (Dresden). Leave it be.


  • Options
    #174
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is Hollywood (or wherever it came from) bullshit. Not the commissar bit, but they had more than enough guns.

    The lack of ammo and rifles is a trope/stereotype of the Imperial Russian army during the First World War and certainly not that of the Soviet army in WW2.


  • Options
    #175
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Deleted User wrote: »
    By that stage in the war, the majority of Russian infantry forces were made up of conscripts taken from rural areas. Extremely little education (if any), brainwashed to see the enemy as animals, etc. Their march across Poland, Eastern Germany etc was a march of rape, and pillage. [edit: I guess I need to bold certain words to make sure they're seen]



    I used naturally because of the aspect of being forcibly conscripted... angry at being conscripted and marched into the guns of a technologically advanced enemy. We've all seen the various movies of Stalingrad where one soldier is given a rifle, and the other, the ammo... with political officers marching behind to shoot anyone to refused to carry out an order. The Russian conscript forces were brutally treated by both the Germans and their own people, which tended to encourage greater aggression when they were released from their leash.

    "Naturally" implies a natural inclination. I would disagree with that and it's borne out by the fact that the frontline troops didn't engage in rapes like the rear echelons did.

    But, I would agree that amongst the 2nd line conscripts of lower education, from mainly rural areas, who were thought that their enemy females were to be their booty rape was incredibly high.

    That however still doesn't reflect a "nature", but rather a circumstantial, opportunistic, and even a cultural influence, rather than a "natural" one, which suggests an integral part of their makeup.


  • Options
    #176
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Allied bombing did more damage to Rotterdam than the Germans.

    Cause and effect. Without germany's need to **** up europe every now and then, the allies hadnt had the need to bomb Rotterdam.

    germans bombed houses in 1940
    Allies tried to keep the bombs dropping on the docks, harbour and airport Waalhaven and german targets. Just not always successful as most of these targets were close to civilians.
    And you can hardly let the germans keep having the biggest port available for them.


  • Options
    #177
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is Hollywood (or wherever it came from) bullshit. Not the commissar bit, but they had more than enough guns.

    A lot of the lazy tropes about the Soviet "hordes" come from the fact that histories written in the Cold War had very limited access to Soviet sources and relied more on German primary sources.

    As a result a lot of German biases entered the history of the Eastern Front. This wasn't helped by former Wehrmacht Generals being feted as expert advisers on the subject by the US and indulging their prejudices. For example ex General Von Mellenthin coming off like Dr Strangelove :

    "Believe us, they are masses and we are individuals. That is the difference between the Russian soldier and the European Soldier...

    "Normal European and American countries educate their people like we do. There is a different class of prairie people [...] Prairie people should not be used in modern warfare because that courts disaster."

    A lot of this was only challenged much later when Soviet records were made more accessible. By then the popular narrative was set in stone.


  • Options
    #178
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    For example ex General Von Mellenthin coming off like Dr Strangelove :

    "Believe us, they are masses and we are individuals. That is the difference between the Russian soldier and the European Soldier...

    "Normal European and American countries educate their people like we do. There is a different class of prairie people [...] Prairie people should not be used in modern warfare because that courts disaster."

    But that is hardly a majority among those German military commentators who had fought against the Soviet Union in the 1940s - why bother quoting him?


  • Options
    #179
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    This is a really interesting thread on the bombing, particularly looking into its legality. tl;dr it could be argued that it wasn't against the law at all either because the laws didn't exist or because the city had been and was still to the best knowledge of the allies defended as a legitimate target. It could still by legal under contemporary law because the allies had a reasonable belief that Dresden was well defended; and indeed we know postwar that the only reason it wasn't heavily defended was because the flak guns were moved off elsewhere more pressing, but it had been well defended up to that point (ie, the allies were acting on the information available to them re its status as a defended city.) However the poster does point out that the view of contemporaries who justified the raid (eg Churchill) as well as history is that the raid was excessive.

    Then again (my comment here) where do you draw the line at excessive when your enemy has decided to wage a self-declared "Total War" and your policy was explicitly to use air bombardment to try destroy your enemy as a way of avoiding the mass slaughter of ground combat (whatever the hindsight view is on the efficacy of that strategy.)

    https://twitter.com/SpitfireFilly/status/1164468509755215872?s=20


  • Options
    #180
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    inforfun wrote: »
    Cause and effect. Without germany's need to **** up europe every now and then, the allies hadnt had the need to bomb Rotterdam.

    germans bombed houses in 1940
    Allies tried to keep the bombs dropping on the docks, harbour and airport Waalhaven and german targets. Just not always successful as most of these targets were close to civilians.
    And you can hardly let the germans keep having the biggest port available for them.

    The German targets were Dutch forces who had garrisoned themselves within the city, as General Rudolf Schmidt had been tasked with taking it and was about to launch a ground attack. The ultimate German target were the ports, too, as the allies had been using it and they could hardly let them have it either. The problem for the Germans was that they didn't have a strategic airforce like the allies did and their bombers were used as flying artillery, to support the land forces. The raid on Rotterdam was carried out in that way and the bombers even dropped below 2000ft to ensure that they hit their target. This was an extremely dangerous thing for them to do as it opened them up to easy ground attack. Had they simply wished to just "bomb houses", there wouldn't have flown so low.

    Schmidt was in talks with the Dutch General, Peter Sharoo (spelling?) about a surrender, when Heinkels from KG54 were scrambled. Once Sharoo had given surrender terms after stalling several times, the call was sent to the bombers to return. But half of the bombers of KG54 didn't get the call. As a result, the German bombing raid of Rotterdam in 1940 was carried out by just 50 Heinkels with 90 odd tons of bombs (mainly SC250) over a target that had been shrouded in smoke by Dutch ground forces as a standard way to obscure any attack and burning structures that had been previously shelled by artillery.

    The Germans tried to recall their forces with telephones and even radioed their ground forces on the outskirts of the city, who were preparing for an assault, to signal KG54 with flares. It worked for half the Kampfgeschwader, but not the rest, who didn't see the flares or receive the radio messages.

    The damage to Rotterdam came from the resultant fires caused by the German bombs, even though it was a paltry amount. Rotterdam's fire services had been reduced and was completely unprepared to combat the fires and they had got out of control, spreading far beyond the narrow area of attack that KG54 had been assigned. However, the Germans didn't set out to simply destroy the city. It would have served them no purpose to do such a thing and would have made their ground attack more difficult. Plus, if they had wanted to simply destroy the city, they would have used many more aircraft than they did and probably at night.

    The bombing of Rotterdam has always been used to "prove" German barbarity from the air however. Churchill even inflated the death from from 900 to 30,000 as propaganda and as a justification for the British to use terror bombing as a tactic. But I don't believe that this was the German aim when they attacked the city. They were probably taken by surprise by the damage to the centre of the city as much as anyone else was.

    Put it like this, if 50 Heinkels with 90 tons of bombs was enough to destroy whole cities, the Gerries would have won the war easily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,910 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    A lot of the lazy tropes about the Soviet "hordes" come from the fact that histories written in the Cold War had very limited access to Soviet sources and relied more on German primary sources.

    As a result a lot of German biases entered the history of the Eastern Front. This wasn't helped by former Wehrmacht Generals being feted as expert advisers on the subject by the US and indulging their prejudices. For example ex General Von Mellenthin coming off like Dr Strangelove :

    "Believe us, they are masses and we are individuals. That is the difference between the Russian soldier and the European Soldier...

    "Normal European and American countries educate their people like we do. There is a different class of prairie people [...] Prairie people should not be used in modern warfare because that courts disaster."

    A lot of this was only challenged much later when Soviet records were made more accessible. By then the popular narrative was set in stone.

    While it's true that German forces were grossly outnumbered at every stage of the fighting on the Eastern Front, it is a mistake to believe that the Red Army were a mass of mindless bullet fodder and the likes of novels like 'War of the Rats' and movies like 'Enemy at the Gates' do nothing to progress any kind of real understanding either.

    The impression of a disorientated mob largely comes from early in Op Barbarossa, where the Soviet forces were overwhelmed by Germany and her allies, despite possessing a far greater number of men and material. They were simply unprepared for the Bewegungskrieg tactics that the Germans employed. Much like the western allies had been the previous year. But by late 42 and into 43, this cliche was no longer even remotely accurate, if it ever really was and the Russians had begun to employ their own manoeuvre warfare against the Germans, with great results.

    We should make no mistake, by 1943, the Red Army had become one of the finest armies in the world at the time.


Advertisement