Unsere Mutter, unsere Vater

[Sgt Joch]

Which more and more reinforces an idea that you're just a pitiful troll and a raving moron with a fixed idea which you can't even argue for properly. Not to mention discrediting yourself by trying to reduce all the discussion to argumentum ad hitlerum which is a sure sign of bigger than normal retardation.

Endymion, you are new here, but that language is not tolerated. Knock it off or your stay here will be very brief.

[Endymion]

Whereas reducing your arguments by calling someone a nazi sympathizer despite all evidence to the contrary or other tactic to belittle discussion opponent is perfectly acceptable?

[Battlefront.com]

You will find that your behavior is judged by your own words, not those of others. So Sgt Joch is correct... knock it off.

And to the others, either debate Endymion's points or stop posting to this thread. I know that a certain recently banned Forum member (who need not be named) has you guys a bit on edge regarding this sort of topic, but don't jump at shadows. It doesn't do anybody any good.

Everybody understand? Good.

Steve

[Endymion]

I'm sorry Steve, perhaps I got carried away a bit with the language there.

Althought I merely responded to continuous more or less veiled insults and belittling by one poster. Nevertheless, I should have used different words perhaps.

Anyway, this really is getting nowhere and derailing the thread. So I'd ask the same, JonS, if you do want to discuss normally then do it in a decent manner not your current tactic of trying to use cheap tricks, mostly by trying to insult me.

Otherwise we can skip the whole quarrel as being utterly pointless.

[Battlefront.com]

Just for giggles, here's my take on "who started the war" in the East. Short answer, both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. War was inevitable because both wanted one. It's just that Nazi Germany turned out to be the one to start it, but that absolutely wasn't what the Soviets had intended.

One must remember that this fight was a continuation of WW1. Germany left Russia only because it had to, not because it wanted to. Instead of the Soviet Union leaving well enough alone, it sought (directly) to incorporate as much as Europe as possible into a larger Soviet empire. In Germany it was ruthless in it's interference with domestic politics, which the established parties and right wingers (of which the National Socialists only were one of) resented big time. They correctly saw the aggressive Soviet policy of interference as a threat, which resulted in a very bloody internal conflict within Germany and outside of it (Freikorps). The winner of that conflict eventually became the Nazi state. Since the Soviets had no intention of backing off the Nazis, correctly, viewed the Soviets as an enemy (despite cynical business dealings with them).

Fast forward to 1939.

Both the Soviets and the Germans realized that they had something to gain from taking over Poland. Not only would each get 1/2 of Poland, but each would (in their minds) get closer to their enemy for the coming war. Kinda like two bar room fighters getting the tables and chairs out of the way so they can really go at it.

The Soviets were in no position to attack the Germans in 1939 or 1940. Their plan was build up their forces and to wait for the Germans to get bogged down attacking westward. I don't remember their initial time estimate, but IIRC they figured they had until 1942 or 1943 for both Germany to be vulnerable and their forces to be ready. But things didn't go according to their plans.

In fact the Nazis crushed the West in a few weeks and were pouring back into Poland before 1940 was even over. Hitler wanted the attack to happen in Spring 1941, but they got distracted by Yugoslavia and Greece, so the attack happened a few months later than originally intended.

The sudden and unexpectedly decisive victory in the west scared the crap out of the Soviets. Here they were expecting to have 2-3 more years to prepare for war and they now had months. A critical wargaming exercise was held and a young officer, by the name of Zhukov (you might have heard of him ) showed that there was no way in Hell that the Soviets could attack and do anything but be horribly defeated.

Stalin was not pleased, but also didn't denny the lessons from the exercise. It was at this point that the Soviets adopted a defense in depth strategy. They would trade lives and territory for time. Time needed to build up a credible offensive capability, at which time they would counter attack and drive right to the Rhein.

The strategy was brilliant and it worked, though only just barely. The crappiest Soviet forces were at the frontier and were expected to do little than cause some casualties and moderately delay the advance. The second tier consisted of forces that had been put together more recently. They were supposed to be good enough to arrest the German advance and hold them, but not good enough to counter attack. The third tier were the brand new forces being raised, equipped with the latest and greatest stuff (like the T-34). They were being formed behind what they saw as the expected frontline of 1941. This force was then to move up to the front and lead the Soviet Union to victory.

Industry was also moved further east, though this move wasn't close to complete before Barbarossa was launched. And because the Germans advanced far quicker and on a border front than expected, more harm was done to their industrial capacity than expected. But enough was moved east to do the job.

Anybody that says the German attack on the Soviet Union was a surprise to the Soviets doesn't know what they're talking about. The exact DAY of the attack seems to have been a surprise, but like D-Day for the Germans... it was expected.

As it happened the first tier did almost nothing, the second tier was incompetently managed and did far less than needed, which resulted in the third tier being committed piecemeal and way ahead of schedule. It was enough to arrest the German advance, but it cost the Soviets the ability to significantly counter attack in 1942 as planned. The horribly stupid Spring 1942 offensive by the Soviets hurt them even more. But Hitler screwed up royally and handed the Soviets the turn around they needed first with Stalingrad and then with Kursk. If the Nazis had played more conservatively in 1942/43, focusing on taking out the best of the Soviet forces, things might have turned out differently. But only "might".

So who started the war in the East? Both. Equally. It's just that someone has to fire the first shot and it happened to be the Nazis. If Stalin had it his way it would have been the Soviets.

Now... does this justify the Nazi attack or what followed? Absolutely not. They could have opted to do a defense in depth and likely would have crushed the Soviets and won the war. But they didn't want that. They wanted Russian territory and resources. They wanted to slaughter their peoples, not defeat them. So they chose, and I do mean chose, their course of action and were in no way shape or form forced into it. And that means they are 100% culpable for everything that happened as a result of June 22, 1941.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm sorry Steve, perhaps I got carried away a bit with the language there.

Althought I merely responded to continuous more or less veiled insults and belittling by one poster. Nevertheless, I should have used different words perhaps.

Anyway, this really is getting nowhere and derailing the thread. So I'd ask the same, JonS, if you do want to discuss normally then do it in a decent manner not your current tactic of trying to use cheap tricks, mostly by trying to insult me.

Otherwise we can skip the whole quarrel as being utterly pointless.

Thanks for that. I have no desire to kick someone off this Forum because a discussion gets a little heated and off track. I would be kicking people off every day if that were the case But people who don't take direction from me do find their time here more limited than those that do.

Word of advice... try not to be so easily offended. It doesn't help your point of view to lash out. In fact, it tends to do the opposite.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I agree completely. For some reason wargamers don't make the best disputants.

But what did you think of the TV show?

Well I don't see a difference in how the TV show and this thread "developed" over time.

Except for the part where nobody got shot here. Yet.

[Nidan1]

I'm still waiting for part three, so I can judge the show in its entirety.

First two parts were good. I really wish it had English subtitles since my German is weak.

I think it is well done from a dramatic standpoint.

Aha teil drei is up!.

[agusto]

I'm still waiting for part three,...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkQb-f2ZdU

[Redwolf]

I'm still waiting for part three, so I can judge the show in its entirety.

First two parts were good. I really wish it had English subtitles since my German is weak.

Honestly. You are better off re-watching the first two.

[Nidan1]

Honestly. You are better off re-watching the first two.

Why, is part three not worth the effort?

[Redwolf]

Why, is part three not worth the effort?

It gets totally bogus and the story gets too far out there with unconvincing coincidences.

Not sure right now when, it might be safe to watch the first half or so.

[agusto]

It gets totally bogus and the story gets too far out there with unconvincing coincidences.

I am watching it right now and i can confirm that.

Not sure right now when, it might be safe to watch the first half or so.

Well, after watching the first two parts, i wanted to know how the story ended.

After all, i give the series a 5/10. Besides all the bad stuff, it was at least a bit thrilling and it had some entertainment value. However if i was to recommend a german war movie to someone, it surely wouldnt be this one.

[Nidan1]

It gets totally bogus and the story gets too far out there with unconvincing coincidences.

Not sure right now when, it might be safe to watch the first half or so.

That's disappointing, but I'll give it a shot anyway after investing the time to watch the first two with my German-English dictionary in hand .

[agusto]

Why, is part three not worth the effort?

I just finished watching part three. If you have already seen the first two and liked them, you should also watch the last part. But my overall rating for the whole series stays at 5/10, maximum.

[BLSTK]

I agree completely. For some reason wargamers don't make the best disputants.

But what did you think of the TV show?

I believe he WAS talking about the TV show...lol.

[BLSTK]

No wait. My bad. It's sarcasm. And we're being reminded to stay on topic.

[Nidan1]

Just finished with part three. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I could understand everything that was said, but I still found it a worthwhile movie.

Its not so much a war movie in the genre of "SPR" or "Cross of Iron" as it is a human interest story set in the craziness and brutality of wartime.

I give it three and a half stars.

[Redwolf]

I believe he WAS talking about the TV show...lol.

One trainwreck is much like the other...

[BLSTK]

True that, my brother.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

While you're discussing prejudice, please be sure to note for the record your bottomless supply of it against me. You seemingly can't resist the impulse to take a shot at me, even when I'm not around and am recuperating from a brain injury and an assault. Pretty pathetic!

Sublime,

The Wiki may take the view that Suvorov and his highly controversial thesis have been discredited, but the United States Naval Institute doesn't appear to share your perspective. THE CHIEF CULPRIT is a distillation of Suvorov's arguments, and it seems to be commanding real attention. I refer you to the detailed description at the link. (Moon, this is for information only and in no way constitutes a solicitation to purchase).

http://www.usni.org/store/books/ebook-editions/chief-culprit

Additionally, the Woodrow Wilson International Institute for Scholars devoted over an hour to this man and his above book, premises and evidence, and C-SPAN broadcast the whole thing. I saw part of it on YT, and this guy's nobody's dummy. He mounts some telling operational arguments of which two of my favorites are: Who, on defense, systematically reinforces his border crossing bridges and stockpiles bridge building materials near them, and who, on defense, removes his frontier obstacles, barbed wire and mines? Seems to me those two issues alone are grounds for a serious rethink of the standard model.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283856-1

As for who was worse, Hitler or Stalin,...a plague on both their houses! I don't have the figures in front of me, and we'd also have to specify an effective date from which to count, but both were clearly sociopathic monsters and highly accomplished mass murderers of the worst stripe. Hitler's crimes are well known, but who, for example, knows of Stalin's campaign of genocide against the Crimean Tatars, as depicted in this scholarly paper?

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/jopohl.html

This is a tiny piece of what Stalin did, and he targeted the Tatars just a surely as did Hitler the Jews.

Regards,

John Kettler

[poesel]

So I finally saw the third part and I understand why it is the least liked part here.

I'll try some explanation: this TV series was made by a German non-private station ('ZDF') for a German and Austrian audience. This station caters mainly for the 50+ ages and usually shows very shallow films which contain lots of pleasant scenery and not much else at the time of the airing.

So depicting the war as they did is quite a step from the usual.

The name of the show is also telling: 'Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter' ('our mothers, our fathers') and not our grandmothers and -fathers. The intended audience was raised by the generation that fought in the war. It was often impossible to ask your parents what they did because they didn't want to talk and now it's impossible because they are dead. That's why they made this series. This audience is not used to the fast paced action and complex stories which are common in current US series. With only three episodes many things had to be left out or shortened. But after the great success I expect more to come.

The part about the Poles was made really badly. The names of towns are often wrong and illogical, the Poles speak polish with a bad German accent, the uniforms were wrong and, most important, depicting the AK as anti-semitic was also wrong. Of course there may have been some but since this group represents the whole AK in the film it puts a wrong light unto them.

I've read one reason was that they originally intended to send Victor, the Jew, to the US, but didn't have the money to film it. So they send him to Poland. Still no excuse for proper research.

What makes me wonder most is that the military errors didn't come up here. If not this forum who else would cry foul first?

[Childress]

poesel, what are the odds that this book will ever be made into a movie? In Germany?

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Soldier-Guy-Sajer/dp/1574882864

[Erwin]

That's a great book. Read it a looong time ago. Most of what I recall about it was about German atrocities carrying over into SE Asia where apparently a lot of SS and Wehrmacht ended up. As a movie sure, but I bet a lot would be "redacted".

[Childress]

Yes, no doubt. The author's veracity has been questioned and one doubts Hollywood would appreciate the concept of 'humanizing' German/Nazi soldiers. But done properly, it would be one helluva of a film. I don't recall many atrocities in the book, mostly the heartbreaking suffering and the fish-out-of-water theme: the author, who's still alive, is French. Most engrossing WW2 treatment I ever encountered.