Unsere Mutter, unsere Vater

[agusto]

Then "Schindler's List" was made for you.

One of the few true german heroes of that era.

[Endymion]

while everyone else - including the Russians - was waging a defensive war.

Only after 1941 after being backstabbed by their good friend Hitler.

You need to always remember that Russians along with their German friends, were the ones to start this war. Remember Ribbentrop - Molotov pact. Remember backstabbing and invading Poland on 17th September 1939 and all atrocities committed there. Remember Invasion of the Baltic states and Winter war in Finland. Remember how close it was for the allies to actually declare war on the soviets then.

It always cracks me up that Russia is somehow seen as the good guys as they are co-responsible for starting the war and commiting some of the worst war crimes on all the nations in eastern europe. The fact that they switched sides after being betrayed by the nazis does not make them so.

Two terrible, murderous regimes, the nazis and the communists started the war side by side, and by a terrible joke of history one of them emerged victorious and celebrated and enslaved half of Europe for almost 50 years instead of being defeated like they should be along with the nazis.

As for the subject itself, the series is very apologetic for the Germans, being part of the Germany's current doctrine to somehow try to show Germany as a victim of a bad, multinational Nazi regime with which most Germans had nothing to do. It's their way to deal with history, with difficult stuff that happened, for falling into this terrible ideology and I don't blame them for trying but it falsifies history.

I am from Poland and one thing especially struck me as bad in the series and caused a sort of scandal involving a protest by the polish embassy in Berlin. The series falsifies the image of polish resistance, showing them for some reason as xenophobic, anti-semites, expelling a Jew from their ranks after they found out he's jewish! Really, I could go on for hours on how many levels this is false, but let me just say this, trying to change history like that, mixing victims with agressors and blurring the whole image is just apalling to me.

PS. About Schindler agusto wrote:

One of the few true german heroes of that era.

He's not as crystal clear as you might think. He was actually a prominent Nazi (proud member of NSDAP, friends with governor Hans Frank and Hauptsturmführer SS Amon Göth responsible for "Jewish affairs" in Krakow) businessman who made a fortune during the war using almost free labour by the Jewish workers. At a point, it became obvious that working for him meant life and many Jews gave him large sums of money to be hired in his factory. He made a fortune this way. The saving of his workers near the end of the war when defeat was certain was a calculated move which meant life for him and saved him from a trial. His story was further popularised in a book and a movie and thus he became a hero. Not everything is as obvious as it seems

[JRMC1879]

Then "Schindler's List" was made for you.

Which is entirely my point. Truly good germans who stood against hitler (and schindler was a very debatable character from that point of view) could be counted on one hand. Sure some germans did some things on a moral basis but they were miniscule to the point of irrelevance. For a people that now attempts to describe themselves as victims of hitler the most remarkable thing about wartime germany was the almost complete lack of resistance to his rule. There is a reason it was so.

[Rokko]

For a people that now attempts to describe themselves as victims of hitler...

I don't think that is a widely accepted idea here, though I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I believe it is more accepted in Austria, though.

[JRMC1879]

It wasn't and isn't my intent to be an apologist.

I'd prefer to see my view as humanist, in both the best and worst sense of rationalizing what people are capable of, and capable of becoming, given conditioning and circumstance.

Both the British and Americans only fought expeditionary wars against an enemy that hadn't been dehumanized the way combatants had been on other fronts and in other theaters during WWII.

Fighting in your own backyard changes the rules. Cultural, social, racial and historic animosity fueled hatred in a way that wasn't as evident in the conflict between the US and Germany.

Fighting in the Pacific took on a different tone, partially because it was easier to dehumanize an Asian enemy.

While my opinion smacks of being the apologist, to me, yours smacks of the very jingoism and moral superiority that causes nations like WWII Germany to feel entitled to invade a neighbour.

And how exactly is that jingoistic ? Not sure I have heard of anything more insulting to the veterans and those who died fighting hitler. My respect for those who did is "moral superiority" ? That causes nations like germany to invade half the world and slaughter millions ? And you say you are not an apologist !! you may not see it but Personally I am "rightly" proud of those who beat germany and it is a mark of the western allies that their first concern was of re-education and not revenge - as it so easily could have been. I see nothing jingoistic in that and if there is a sense of moral superiority then it is a well deserved one. Whilst you may try to "rationalize" it I prefer to see the very real and historically documented differences between the way the german army behaved and those of the western allies.

Even your point about japan only goes as far as the fighting - and was born mostly from what the japanese soldier did in reality than the soldiers gullability in accepting propoganda at face value. The inhumanity - if you can call it that - and I dont - from us soldiers in the pacific was borne from what they witnessed and not from indoctrination.

[WynnterGreen]

Truly good germans who stood against hitler could be counted on one hand.

How many good Americans stood up to stop Bush from invading Iraq????

[JRMC1879]

I don't think that is a widely accepted idea here, though I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I believe it is more accepted in Austria, though.

Here maybe not. Elsewhere it is definitely a trend I see.

[JonS]

Only after 1941 after being backstabbed by their good friend Hitler.

Sure. Backstabbed BY Hitler. And forced intoa defensive war. Not the other way round. Sure, things could have been different, but they weren't.

You need to always remember that Russians along with their German friends, were the ones to start this war. Remember Ribbentrop - Molotov pact.

I remember that Ribbentrop went to Moscow in order to get an agreement that would allow Germany to 'safely' start a war of aggression. What do you remember?

Remember Invasion of the Baltic states and Winter war in Finland. Remember how close it was for the allies to actually declare war on the soviets then.

Sure. Do you remember Operation BARBAROSSA?

It always cracks me up that Russia is somehow seen as the good guys as they are co-responsible for starting the war and commiting some of the worst war crimes on all the nations in eastern europe.

Crack away, laughing boy. I don't think Stalin or his Russia were swell. At all. But given a choice between Germany and Russia the choice is not pleasant but still obvious.

I am from Poland

Ah. Well, I can see that might colour things a bit for your then. Still, the General Government was a German institution, not a Russian one. Lech Wałęsa wouldn't have gone far under German rule. For one thing, there wouldn't have been any trade unions for him to organise.

[JRMC1879]

How many good Americans stood up to stop Bush from invading Iraq????

Well - two million people marched in London on one day in 2003 ? dont know about america. And beyond the fact that the politicians lied to us about the reasons for invading and they completely F******* up the aftermath of the war - I have no problem with the Iraq war so not entirely sure I see your point. Removing a tourturer of children and gasser of innocents was as much a just cause as removing hitler. If the peace had been succesful and not totally screwed up then the chorus of detractors now would have been as deafening as a mouse squeaking in an empty room. Personally - lying politicians aside - I always saw the protesters point of view as one of being more a selfish concern about the law and the treasure being spent than one of concern for fellow human beings continuing to live under a murdering sadist and a sanctions regime that did nothing to oust him but killed a lot of kids.

The practice was terrible - there was nothing wrong with the principle. Cant seriously beleive you are making the comparison to be honest. Iraq was hardly a sovereign state - it was the personal fiefdom of a sadistic gangster and torturer of children, nothing more.

[Rokko]

As for the subject itself, the series is very apologetic for the Germans, being part of the Germany's current doctrine to somehow try to show Germany as a victim of a bad, multinational Nazi regime with which most Germans had nothing to do. It's their way to deal with history, with difficult stuff that happened, for falling into this terrible ideology and I don't blame them for trying but it falsifies history.

Another thing Browning pointed out was how keen the suspects/witnesses (i.e. ther German policemen) were on mentioning how often Jews were betrayed sort of as a way to "spread the guilt more evenly".

But I don't agree with you here. Weren't people in Poland upset about Lanzmann's portrayal of Polish antisemitism as well?

I don't know how the AK was portrayed in the series because I haven't watched it completely, and I don't know how antisemitic the AK in particular was. But I do know that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted not only in Germany but essentially everywhere in Eastern Europe and other places as well. So it is not wrong to portray that I'd say.

It would be wrong to portray Poles as more anti-semitic than the Germans or to portray the Poles as somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Wether some Poles individually contributed to it (directly or indirectly) or not is irrelevant to it I think.

[Endymion]

Sure. Backstabbed BY Hitler. And forced intoa defensive war. Not the other way round. Sure, things could have been different, but they weren't.

Oh wow, seems you will be denying stuff right? You very conveniently omitted OFFENSIVE military actions agains Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. These were first, and invasion of Poland started WWII, September the 1st aggressionby Germany and September the 17th attacks from the east by the soviets, get your facts straight.

I remember that Ribbentrop went to Moscow in order to get an agreement that would allow Germany to 'safely' start a war of aggression. What do you remember?

Detailed division of Poland and Baltic states was also agreed upon. Further military action by Stalin was an effect of that pact, an alliance that made the war possible.

Sure. Do you remember Operation BARBAROSSA?

Of course, Hitler managed to be slightly faster than Stalin who was planning exactly the same move against him. Soviet army was preparing for an offensive war, Stalin was unlucky to be a bit late. Read "Icebreaker" by Alexandr Suworow as an example, it's just one of the good books on the subjects. One tyrant outsmarting and being faster than the other, that's what it was. Might as well say, two rabid dogs fighting over the bones of Europe.

Crack away, laughing boy. I don't think Stalin or his Russia were swell. At all. But given a choice between Germany and Russia the choice is not pleasant but still obvious.

It's a choice between malaria and cholera, or any other two plagues you might think of. Stalin was a monster on a same level as Hitler, responsible for even more deaths (43 million) but I'll not be judging them who killed more, they were equally twisted and evil. There is no obvious choice, countries under Soviet occupation suffered similarly to what happened under Nazi rule. Concentration camps instead gulags, death camp for death camp, clear choice indeed.

Ah. Well, I can see that might colour things a bit for your then.

Colour? Maybe prove me wrong first instead of dismissing it by simply being racist thank you very much? If you find anything inaccurate I'll happily discuss with you, but on a basis "you're from this country and that so you're full of crap".

Still, the General Government was a German institution, not a Russian one.

And? Do you think it was easier under Soviet occupaction? Do you even know what happened to people there? How many died in Soviet prisons, how many died in Gulags or were forcefully moved deep into Russia? Not to mention stuff like Katyn.

It was the same crap, don't be apologising for one regime, they were the same evil.

Lech Wałęsa wouldn't have gone far under German rule. For one thing, there wouldn't have been any trade unions for him to organise.

You're comparing post war marionette country with what happened during the war under direct Soviet occupation. Compare the two in relevant periods of time 1939 -1941 and 1944 -1945. Of course, we could also mention what happened in post war times, how many people were butchered, imprisoned or repatriated because they opposed the new awesome communist rule.

In other words, you apparently know very little about these events, not surpising considering how successful the Soviet propaganda was and how they were valued allies at the time of war. In Russia itself and in occupied countries these were taboo subjects as well. Do you know when Soviets admitted the Katyn massaccre? 1990.

Please don't try to be apologetic towards one of the regimes. I don't know where you're coming from or why you're trying to do this but learn some history first. They were the faces of the same evil, both based on terror, both having millions of victims, both ruled by terrible tyrants. I don't even know how you can attempt to see one of them as better ones. There is no "lesser evil" here.

[poesel]

As for the subject itself, the series is very apologetic for the Germans, being part of the Germany's current doctrine to somehow try to show Germany as a victim of a bad, multinational Nazi regime with which most Germans had nothing to do.

There is no such thing as 'Germany's doctrine'. This is, after all, a democratic state with free press/TV. You can make any film you like (although the limits for a Third Reich movie are much stricter in Germany than elsewhere).

What can be observed is that there are currently more movies that do not have the war or the holocaust as their main theme and instead focus on the 'normal' life of the Germans at the time.

That may look like moving away from the 'Germans as offenders' to 'Germans as victims' but there is already a plethora of documentations/books/movies/exhibitions of the former while the latter is quite under represented.

That explains a lot about the popularity this TV series we talk about here gained: because it is a different (albeit not new) approach to the subject. The - foreign and domestic - reaction is foreseeable: some are offended because the series depicts 'good' Germans and others because it depicts 'evil' Poles. Yes, both existed. No, not all were like this. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Endymion]

@ Rokko

I don't know how the AK was portrayed in the series because I haven't watched it completely, and I don't know how antisemitic the AK in particular was.

AK was involved in smuggling Jews out of the ghetto, getting new identities for jewish children and adults, helping to hide them till the end of the war. AK issued death sentences to anyone who betrayed jews to Germans. When uprising in Warsaw ghetto started in 1943 (not to confuse with Warsaw uprising in 1944) AK delivered weapons and even some small help to the fighters there. When it failed, they helped smuggle the remaining fighters out of the ghetto, Marek Edelmann among them (last leader of the jewish guerillas, later took part in Warsaw uprising in 1944). Many many other instances of stuff like that, so to call the anti-semite is well, very painful for those who remember all these deeds.

But I do know that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted not only in Germany but essentially everywhere in Eastern Europe and other places as well. So it is not wrong to portray that I'd say.

The part about anti semitism being common is true. But it was a different kind of anti semitism, based on the same, mostly economic principles, same as towards any significat minority at that time in any country. It had nothing to do with Nazi untermensch ideology and was not aggressive enough to cause holocaust etc. This was something like people's general dislike towards gypsies or immigrants present nowadays in any country - same as british lower classes start to dislike immigrants from eastern europe for "stealing their jobs" etc.

It would be wrong to portray Poles as more anti-semitic than the Germans or to portray the Poles as somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Wether some Poles individually contributed to it (directly or indirectly) or not is irrelevant to it I think.

I can agree with that. Some Poles were traitors of course, sold Jews to Germans. There are bad people in any nation. But it was never a widespread thing, never took the scale of what happened in France or Italy were collaboration in this regard was much more widely spread.

[Sublime]

Of course, the AK wasn't the only Polish resistance group by far. There were also Communists, regular Bandits, etc. Same in Ukraine and Russia. Or Yugoslavia and France as well for that matter.

I have to disagree with your citation of Suvorov, though, Endymion. He's been pretty thoroughly discredited academically and here on the board. You're entitled to believe what you like, however I personally for one don't believe his books. However, I do think its a POSSIBILITY that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 42. I'm certain they would have eventually though.

Finally, JonS isn't racist, or being a racist. Pointing out your Polish isn't 'racist'. If he pointed out you were white, or black, or asian, or hispanic, that would have been racist. Pointing out you may be disposed towards a subject a certain way isn't racist, though he may be wrong about whether or not you actually do feel that way.

[Endymion]

Of course, the AK wasn't the only Polish resistance group by far. There were also Communists, regular Bandits, etc. Same in Ukraine and Russia. Or Yugoslavia and France as well for that matter.

Erm, in the time where AK was strongest, in summer 1943 it accounted for 380.000 soldiers. NSZ (National Armed Forced, a bit more right wing (god forbid I don't mean fascist) but allied with AK) had 100.000 people at peak time. The communist resistance in spring 1944 amounted to 5.000 people...

The communist and other groups you mentioned were a very insignificant force, later bloated by communist writers during Soviet occupation to make it seem it meant anything. Poland really was that anti communist and if not for the Soviet army the Communists would not be ruling Poland after the war. There were around 100-200.000 people (mostly gathered around WIN (former AK mostly) and NZS) actively fighting the Soviets and the communist government until 1950s. These are little know facts, only after Poland became independent again can the history be truely verified.

I know you have the right to not know all that, I don't blame you. Like I said, communist propaganda was very efficient.

I have to disagree with your citation of Suvorov, though, Endymion. He's been pretty thoroughly discredited academically and here on the board. You're entitled to believe what you like, however I personally for one don't believe his books. However, I do think its a POSSIBILITY that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 42. I'm certain they would have eventually though.

Well, it's up to debate, there are other sources. Anyway, that was just one of the points. Does not change the fact Stalin only became Hitler's prey at a certain point in the war, being his good ally in the 30s until 1941. That was the main point here

Finally, JonS isn't racist, or being a racist. Pointing out your Polish isn't 'racist'. If he pointed out you were white, or black, or asian, or hispanic, that would have been racist. Pointing out you may be disposed towards a subject a certain way isn't racist, though he may be wrong about whether or not you actually do feel that way.

Well that's semantics really. Might as well just say he was prejudiced towards what I had to say and disregarded it because of my nationality. Xenophobic sounds better in this case? What would be the proper word then?

[JonS]

Might as well just say he was prejudiced towards what I had to say and disregarded it because of my nationality. Xenophobic sounds better in this case? What would be the proper word then?

Or, you could say he was sympathetic to your position, given your background.

FWIW, my father in law walked out of Hungary through the mountains in the winter of '56 to get away from the Soviets. Backwards, to make tracking him more difficult. That doesn't make me Hungarian, and I never lived under Soviet rule, but I'm not holding a candle for them.

Well, it's up to debate, there are other sources.

Leaning on Suvorov makes your opinions questionable. Not even being aware that Rezun is dubious tends to put you at the Kettlerian end of the bellcurve.

[agusto]

Of course, Hitler managed to be slightly faster than Stalin who was planning exactly the same move against him. Soviet army was preparing for an offensive war, Stalin was unlucky to be a bit late.

That is the most apologetic statement ever, supporting the "premtive strike theory" as justification for Barbarossa. In fact the USSR had never been seeking war with Germany.

[Endymion]

Leaning on Suvorov makes your opinions questionable. Not even being aware that Rezun is dubious tends to put you at the Kettlerian end of the bellcurve.

You're only gonna question that one thing which was a minor example of some of the people who put down theories of Stalin being almost ready to invade himself? Not that he was the only one. Nor am I saying his timing is exact. It was an example. There are many historians who claim Stalin was preparing to stab Hitler. Knowing Stalin and knowing he was not stupid but a cunning beast he most assuredly did have such plans. Were they exactly as Suvorov says, with timing and details? Debatable. Does not change the fact it's the most probable theory.

Anyway, that was a little side track, do you even remember the main point which was saying that Nazis and Communists were equally evil?

Don't try to disprove all I have to say by sticking to one sentence only, one that I'm not wholeheartedly defending even, it does not serve you.

I know it's very convenient for you, because I'm assuming you have a problem questioning anything else I said, mainly that two regimes started a war, were aggresive sides, and only in 1941 finally went for each other's throats, and as a result one of the dictators effectively won half of Europe because the western allies would even ally with a devil to defeat another.

Your point was that Stalin was better that Hitler so I stated a lot different things to the contrary, none of which you even replied, first trying to say I was "coloring" because of my nationality and then sticking to Suvorov stuff.

As I understand you still claim uncle Stalin was a good guy despite of all the atrocities he committed and all the millions of people he killed?

[Endymion]

That is the most apologetic statement ever, supporting the "premtive strike theory" as justification for Barbarossa. In fact the USSR had never been seeking war with Germany.

Apologetic towards whom? That the two scum fought each other? You clearly have no idea what I'm writing about do you?

It's you who are apparently trying to be apologetic towards Stalin, even after taking active part in starting the war, being Hitler's ally and for attacking and enslaving so many countries, and just because Hitler attacked him first in 1941?

No mate, there is no excuse for either, the two regimes were EQUALLY bad, the worst that could happen to humanity, even worse that they coexisted at roughly the same time. Barbarossa and helping defeat Hitler (a matter of survival and then conquest) does not excuse uncle Stalin for anything he did.

[JonS]

You're only gonna question that one thing which was a minor example of some of the people who put down theories of Stalin being almost ready to invade himself?

"That one thing" is the only verifiable thing of any substance you wrote. And it's rubbish.

As I understand you still claim uncle Stalin was a good guy despite of all the atrocities he committed and all the millions of people he killed?

Yes, well, I can't help your appalling reading comprehension.

[Endymion]

"That one thing" is the only verifiable thing of any substance you wrote. And it's rubbish.

Hmm, so Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is unverifiable? Inasion of Poland on 17th September did not happen? Invasion of Baltic states did not happen? Winter war 39/40 as well? Millions of Stalin's victims did not happen? Gulags did not happen? What next, you're going to deny holocaust? You're an absolutely horrible person, a liar or just an uneducated brat if you're trying to deny things like this.

Yes, well, I can't help your appalling reading comprehension.

Let me remind you of what you said then.

But given a choice between Germany and Russia the choice is not pleasant but still obvious.

Lie much? Congratulations on denying what you said one page ago, way to go guy.

I can't help your appaling ability to lie with a straight face.

It's really difficult to discuss with people like you. You tend to forgo all facts, not reply to arguments, try to use simplistic eristic techniques to win the argument in an easy way, deny simple truths when they're inconvenient to your theory... Really, what people will not do to win an argument on the internet...

[JonS]

"I don't think Stalin or his Russia were swell. At all. But given a choice between Germany and Russia the choice is not pleasant but still obvious. "

equals

"you claim uncle Stalin was a good guy despite of all the atrocities he committed and all the millions of people he killed"

really?

Edit: waaaaaiiit a sec ... joined a few days ago, 8 posts, all in this thread. Do I know you?

[Endymion]

No, it equals the fact that you thought Stalin was "OBVIOUSLY" a better choice to which I reacted as you might recall:

It's a choice between malaria and cholera, or any other two plagues you might think of. Stalin was a monster on a same level as Hitler, responsible for even more deaths (43 million) but I'll not be judging them who killed more, they were equally twisted and evil. There is no obvious choice, countries under Soviet occupation suffered similarly to what happened under Nazi rule. Concentration camps instead gulags, death camp for death camp, clear choice indeed.

After which all your attempts to obviously escape from the subject started. Anything to add? Want to argue a bit more on the subject perhaps?

[agusto]

Apologetic towards whom?

The Nazi regime. If Stalin had planned an attack on Germany and Hitler just had attacked first, this is the perfect justification for the German Operation Barbarossa. Saying this means defending Hitlers decision to invade Russia. Besides all of that, it is simply not true. There were no concret Soviet plans for an attack on Germany.

It's you who are apparently trying to be apologetic towards Stalin, even after taking active part in starting the war, being Hitler's ally and for attacking and enslaving so many countries, and just because Hitler attacked him first in 1941?

No mate, there is no excuse for either, the two regimes were EQUALLY bad, the worst that could happen to humanity, even worse that they coexisted at roughly the same time. Barbarossa and helping defeat Hitler (a matter of survival and then conquest) does not excuse uncle Stalin for anything he did.

The fact that both the USSR and the 3rd Reich both were equally inconvenient places to live in doesnt mean they are both equally responsible for starting the war.

[JonS]

Anything to add?

Yes and no.

Yes: your objectivity on this is hoplessly compromised.

No: I think the hole you've dug is already deep enough.