World War II Commentaries

[VigilVirus]

Of the nazis, it would be wise to associate that specificity rather than the generalization of the germans.

Just like Soviets/Russians. But that's just political correctness.

[Acriku]

A Soviet is an inhabitant of the late Soviet Union, a Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, each circumstance is quite different. Soviets are like germans, Russians are like germans, Russians are like soviets, members of their country, but when you specify a member of a party, you must committ to that specificity lest someone misunderstand your position.

[VigilVirus]

It doesn't matter. The Germans at that time were nazis, but they were also germans. Just because they were nazis doesn't cancel out the fact that they were afterall germans.

[Acriku]

So all americans are democrats? Or republicans? My point, is that there were the nazis, a Worker's Party, and then there were other germans who either opposed the nazis, were nuetral on the subject, or advocated them but never joined them. Those people are not nazis, and shouldn't be included in the generalization.

[emprworm]

but thats the problem, Acriku. The Soviet army didn't care about Nazi's...only Germans. I agree with you that there is a difference. This is why the soviet army was barbaric. they saw only germans and spared no one

[Acriku]

Empr I was talking about they were different that soviets are a people of the Soviet Union, nazis are germans of a specific party, so saying germans would be wrong.

[The_Sadukar]

but thats the problem, Acriku. The Soviet army didn't care about Nazi's...only Germans. I agree with you that there is a difference. This is why the soviet army was barbaric. they saw only germans and spared no one

as I said before, neiter did the Nazis

[Caid Ivik]

WW2 thread! ;D

First I have to say it was Hitler, who thought barbarically (natural deities, expansionism, worshipping strenght over mind...) and started aggressive war without any moral will. Roman Empire at least wanted to spread its culture, assimilate barbarians, de facto bringing some progress to their new provinces (altough not every general did it). But ideology of nazistic expansion was mased on annihilation or total xenonational enslavement and replacement - how fought barbarians. Russians fought in their Great Patriotic War defensive fight, which cannot be named "barbaric". Barbarians if couldn't defeat the enemy had fled from area. Russians stayed and defended to last men, or as partisans. They've made most sacrificies to save the civilised world. Altough they were led by even worse barbarian than Hitler was, they showed they are part of Europe, and that they feel a responsibility for it too.

Germans fought fanatised by nazists, Russians hasted by soviets. "Soviet" means a council, symbol of "people's democracy". Calling every Russian a "soviet" is very unfortunate and it sounds ironically, I can say, like you were laughing about them. Also not everyone wanted to fight for Stalin. Ukraine cheered when Wehrmacht came. If they knew who Hitler was, they wouldn't, but don't forget most of them were part of Austro-Hungarian Empire (country known as "Halic", capital was Lvov). I cannot say this about Germans. German opposition was much smaller than in Russia or any other country. They were lured by Hitler to "repair" the history.

[Edric O]

You do not understand, Emprworm. Your country was never invaded by an enemy whose declared objective was to utterly exterminate your people.

Just a few examples of what Hitler had in mind for Europe:

- Berlin would be turned into a monstrous Nazi Metropolis, bristling with inspid war monuments. Even during his very last days, Hitler studied outlines and models of the future Berlin, "Germania".

- The Netherlands, Flemish Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway would have been incorporated in the Third Reich, with or without their approval; these ethnicities were considered to be of "Nordic race". Both Hitler and Himmler were determined to realise this project. France would have become a satellite state; Italy, Spain and Great Britain would probably have become more or less independant vasall states.

- Poland, European Russia and perhaps also Germany's East European allies would have been colonised by "Aryan" settlers. All major Russian cities would be destroyed and the entire Russian and Polack populations would be turned into illiterate slaves. In fact, the Nazis almost completed the colonisation of Poland, the Generalguvernement, when the war still was raging in the east. The "colonies" would probably have resembled the British and French colonies in Africa and Asia during the 19th century; a feudalesque, crypto-Medieval society. Hitler was quite frank: "Here, in the east, is our experimental field."

By my standards, the Russians were merciful. If I were in charge of the Red Army, after seeing all of what happened to my people, the mass murders of women and children, the systematic killing of war prisoners, the flattening of entire villages, and most kilely my own family brutally murdered at the hands of the nazis, I would have wiped Germany off the face of the Earth.

Emprworm, how can you even think of supporting those inhumane murderers? The nazis got what they deserved.

I am eternally grateful to the Russian people for liberating my country. It is to the unknown heroes of the Red Army that we owe our very existence! Whatever the soviets did, it was nothing compared to what the nazis would have done to our peoples.

Soyuz nerushimiy respublik svobodnykh

Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'!

Da zdravstvuet sozdanniy voley narodov

Velikiy, moguchiy Sovetskiy Soyuz!

If you lived here, you would understand.

[Anathema]

You know Russian Edric?

The part of Russia was particulary bloody. They lacked modern war equipment, unlike the Germans, and only won because of sheer numbers. Stalin even went as far as sending unarmed men into death. Take the battle of Stalingrad. Hitler mindlessly sent his troops to take the city for the sole reason that Stalin named it after himself, and Stalin threw thousends of fresh conscripts at them. In the battle of Stalingrad Russia lost more troops then the United States in the entire war.

[VigilVirus]

Several of my great grandfathers died in WWII, I think one died during the battle of Stalingrad. I am very proud of what my people did during the war, how fiercely they thought in the face of a technologically advanced enemy. I do not approve of the leadership though, Stalin's decisions put Russia in a very weak position at the start (Germany managed to destroy much of Russia's air and ground force that was standing still before Stalin even acknowledged the fact that Hitler broke the NAP and attacked Soviet Union).

[Edric O]

Yes, you are right. The war wasn't won by Stalin or his corrupt acolytes. It was won by the people who fought and died to defend their homes and their families, against an enemy who would have them killed to the last child. They are the true heroes.

Earthnuker: No, actually I can't speak a single word of Russian (well, except "Da" and "Nyet"). That was just an excerpt from the anthem of the USSR. I know what it means only because I also have an English traslation of it...

[nemafakei]

War crimes are terrible things, but perhaps it is a necessary price to pay to shorten the war, if the USSR's support was a yes/no choice, and make sure Hitler's rule ended.

[The_Sadukar]

isn't it strange that the only one who has argued against the russians is emprworm

[VigilVirus]

Cold War ideals maybe? ::)

[TMA_1]

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

This is a quote that is so true. Though russia was not a nation we particularly liked, we couldnt have won the war without them. They werent the best solders and their technology wasent up to par, but they sure did fight hard and had swarms of men to fight against the germans. The stratagy and tactics they used were very good as well. They were one of the keystones to our victory.

About the ethics of war: like I said before, america during WW 2 did some horrible things that pretty much equal those of many other nations that fought. We just dont study this because historians arent always as unbias as they should be. Empr, you need to understand that the russians were wrong, but that war is evil in the first place. They were killed in the thousands by the germans who betrayed them. Of course they are going to be pissed. Also rape and the like have always been in war. Some of the greatest "heroes" we hear of, like alexander and julius caesar, scipio and zhuge liang. They all were generals and tactitions who had solders that did evil things to civilians. Even americans destroyed thousands of civilians with "scorched earth" tactics. Carpet bombing, plundering, poisoning and all around killing all people in their way. TO destroy morale of their enemies. I dare say that duringthe viet nam war, that we were any better than the russians during WW2

[Edric O]

They were one of the keystones to our victory.

*cough* their victory *cough* ;)

The Nazis brutally slaughtered civilians in occupied Russia by the millions. They would kill 10 Russian villagers for every German killed by partisans...

And Russia lost nearly 30 million people in WW2. More than everyone else put together.

[VigilVirus]

It's really funny how many americans still think they were the ones who won WWII for the europeans. In truth though, the role of US was miniscule when concerning the battle in Europe, most of what they did in the war was against Japan.

[GhostHunter]

No I doubt it was.....I mean if America was never there Britain would of never stepped off of their island past Africa and Germany would still hold Europe...

And if America didn't join at all the Soviet Union would of fallen because the Germans would have had more forces to fight, plus, Japan would of eventully attacked them from the East and the Soviets used their reserves from every direction against the Germans, if they got hit from the West...

[TMA_1]

"the role of US was miniscule when concerning the battle in Europe."

dude... lol without american help, the nations would have crumbled over in europe. I mean they practically did. just a few nations were able to sustain themselves. even england would have been destroyed eventually. I am not saying that we were the ones that were the best.lol far from it, I am just saying that you dont relaly understand the history behind all of this. You probably just listen to history channel, or maybe studied it in highschool. Russia would have lost if it wasnt for the germans attacking their frontlines in the winter. If they would have waited, and prioritized better, they could have had the chance of winning. The russians were generally bad solders. Many were just civilians with old guns. Some were even muzzle loaders. All of their technology was primitive. From their planes to their rifles.

[VigilVirus]

First of all, Germany attacked Russia on June 22nd if you didn't know not in winter. I believe you are the one who does not know the entire history behind this.

Russia did not have neither primitive technology nor bad soldiers. Germany did have superior tech, true, but Russian tech was not worse that for example French or British.

US entered the war when Russia was long winning against Germany and pushing them back. It was a clear victory on the Eastern front.

And Vilgent, like I said, US did play a big role in the battle against Japan.

EDIT: TMA, most likely you have the US version of the war on the Eastern front. I'm sorry to say, but much of it is incorrect to make US look better and Soviet Union worse. Most of the texbooks/learning material was made during the Cold War/Slightly post-Cold War you know.

[emprworm]

through all of this, i still find no justification for the Soviet attempt at German genocide. As Acriku pointed out earlier, Germans did not equate to Nazi's. Yet Soviets equated them and killed anything German- whether woman or child.

This is barbaric and nothing I can see justifies it. I am not defending the NAZI's remember that German did not equal Nazi. THe soviets were barbaric. Let me illustrate this: Britain and the US accomplished the same goals, yet didn't resort to the barbarism the Soviets did. This proves that the Soviet barbarism was not necessary.

[VigilVirus]

Oh, should the Soviets given out candy to the Germans instead? How about some tea to go with it? ::)

It was WAR. German military did much worse things to the russian civilians.

[Edric O]

Let me illustrate this: Britain and the US accomplished the same goals, yet didn't resort to the barbarism the Soviets did.

They didn't. The western allies had a walk in the park compared to what the Russians went through.

There is a journal written by a small 8 year-old girl who lived in Leningrad during the german blockade on the city. She writes how all her family, everyone she ever loved, died one by one of starvation, cold, or disease. Nothing but emptiness remained in their place.

When you have everything you ever loved taken away from you, when everyone you know dies at the hands of foreign invaders bent on exterminating your entire people, then vengeance is your RIGHT. What the Russians did was justice.

[VigilVirus]

When you have everything you ever loved taken away from you, when everyone you know dies at the hands of foreign invaders bent on exterminating your entire people, then vengeance is your RIGHT. What the Russians did was justice.

I agree, Edric. Couldn't have put it better myself.