Who were the good guys? (O/T )

[Freyberg]

It's complicated, the Nazi atrocities were so inhuman and shocking that we understandably hold them as being the epitome of evil, and yet doing so does tend to act as a distraction from the atrocities - also shocking and inhuman - that our own societies have committed, particularly since the mid-Nineteenth Century.

Then Nazi apologists then take that moral imbalance and try use it to somehow mitigate the wrongs of the Nazis. Like adding sleight of hand to myopia.

As a Kiwi, thus a descendant of the British Empire, I think some of what *we* did, particularly in Africa and China (the opium trade), had a human toll at least as high as the concentration camps. But the Commonwealth redeemed itself at least to some small degree by doing the right thing and fighting Hitler.

'Everyone did it' is the worst possible excuse.

[JonS]

Germany lost the war long before Hitler made his most famous bad moves.

Yes, but that's not the point Lucas was making.

There was, and remains, a very strong thread in the WWII literature that can be summed up as "we wuz robbed! We coulda beaten those faceless hordes of Commies if only!" Through the 1950s and 60s it was particularly strong from German writers like Manstein, Carrel, v.Mellenthin, and Guderian, and they were followed by a large phalanx of western writers who mined those books and the EthInt interviews to show how awesome the German way of war was, and how just maybe 'we' could win a conventional war in Europe because you know those Rooskies weren't really all that good and this time we won't be supplying them with trucks and planes. Whoever coined the aphorism that "the victors write the history" obviously hadn't heard of the Eastern Front.

Lucas' point was, I believe, that perhaps the Cold War-era Soviet literature on the Eastern-front was pretty ****ty, but the Cold War-era German-inspired literature on the Eastern-front was just as ****ty.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yes, but that's not the point Lucas was making.

There was, and remains, a very strong thread in the WWII literature that can be summed up as "we wuz robbed! We coulda beaten those faceless hordes of Commies if only!" Through the 1950s and 60s it was particularly strong from German writers like Manstein, Carrel, v.Mellenthin, and Guderian, and they were followed by a large phalanx of western writers who mined those books and the EthInt interviews to show how awesome the German way of war was, and how just maybe 'we' could win a conventional war in Europe because you know those Rooskies weren't really all that good and this time we won't be supplying them with trucks and planes. Whoever coined the aphorism that "the victors write the history" obviously hadn't heard of the Eastern Front.

Lucas' point was, I believe, that perhaps the Cold War-era Soviet literature on the Eastern-front was pretty ****ty, but the Cold War-era German-inspired literature on the Eastern-front was just as ****ty.

Thatprettymuch sums it up. Russian Front historiography is full of misconceptions, excuses, obfuscatiions and outright lies.There are for example entire battes and campaigns we did not even know existed. Take the First Sovet invasion of Roumaniafor example. We knew aboutthe battle of Targul Frumos. Mentioned by Paul Carell and quite a detailed account in the history of the PanzerKorps Gross Deutschland. But very little on the wider context until Glantz produced a detailed account in Red Storm over the Balkans. But the question is why the Soviets tried to cover it up for so long. Could it be that this was not one of the Red Army's best performabceswth almost 80000 casualties incurred by 2nd Ukranian Front. Or wasthe whole thing a huge deception operation for Bagration. Most of the German Panzer strength in June 1944 was in Army Group South, not Army Group Centre. Could it be that it wasthe Soviet Spring Offensive into Roumania that convinced theGerman high command that the Soviet summer offensive for 1944 would fall there. We know as a matter ofhistorical record that the first phase, Oeration Bagration caused the destruction of Army Group Centre tearinga huge gap in the German front that requiredthe Panzer Divisions to movenorth to attempt to close that gap. But then, inAugust came the secondhammer blow, the Lvov-Sandomierz Operation that basted another hole, knocked the Roumanians out of rthe Axis, almstdid the same to Hungary and captured the vital Ploesti oilfields. And after this the Eastern Front was never entirely stable again. Could it be that the spring1944 invasio plan was in fact part of a hge strategic deception plan? After all the Red Army had done that kind of thing before on a smallr scale. Bu, if the deceptoion theory is acccurate in any way it would be hugely significant. It is possible thjat both of the above hypothesis could be true, that the Germans were the victims of a massive Soviet strategic deception but the deception required a huge cost in bood that the Soviets did not want to admit to (and there may well be other reasons as well.

There is I suspect much that is still to be revealed.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I was referring more to political and social history of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

But the discrepancies in military history writing are fascinating, the story of how historians correct, revise and argue over interpretations is almost a battle in itself. For even unbiased history is practically always about interpretation.

Having done years of research into primary documents along with interviewing veterans (totally different theatre, I have only an amateur's interest in the eastern front) gives me an insight into how tricky it can be to reconcile records with what actually happened, why, and who was responsible.

Even primary sources such as unit command diaries can disagree with each other - which to trust? Memories fade or are embellished, and personal relationships or feuds can get in the way of accurate oral history. And yes even after the war is over, propaganda continues.

Historians need similar skills to detectives if they want to present a sound case.

Could all the above in fact be true. There are many possible motivations such as national policy, former commanders wanting to cast their unit in the besty possible light, covering up or excusing failures for example. This is what makes history such a difficult and captivating subject to study when you garto A level, degree and beyond. You have tto assess the evidence, consider motivations and bias and make a judgement of that evidence to arrive at your own conclusions. And by the nature of its' historiography the Russian Front is one of the most difficult and controversial of subjects. Which is one of the reasons it excerts such fascination. And why it is almost impossile t come to a satifactory conclusion about who were the "goodies" and who were the "baddies" Personally I believe that it is closer to the truth to argue that niether side were the "goodies" The Axs were undoubtadly the aggressors and the Soviets were defendng their own ountry. To that extent the Soviets can claim to have beenn fighting a "Just War" of self defence. But when we consider all he atrocities committed o both sides, the variouslies, cover ups and half truths the picture becomes far kless clear and both sides lose their claim to be fighting a just war, not least because of he methods used and the atrocities both sides committed. Whch is why I have had to cnclude that, on the balance of evidence both sides were, in the final analysis "baddies"

[Childress]

Childress: The American Indians were given disease infested blankets deliberately. Early example of biological warfare by the invaders. That's why I mentioned it. It was their "holocaust".

Erwin,

You're referring to the Fort Pitt incident of 1763. The British commander, Lord Amherst, discussed by letters (which are extant) the possibility of infecting the besieging natives with smallpox contaminated blankets. It's unknown whether the plan was carried out successfully.

Smallpox was already raging among the Indians in North America. That and a host of other infectious diseases to which the natives had no genetic defense had already begun drastically reducing South American indigenous populations two hundred years before. Thanks to the Spanish who, by the way, were far more ruthless in other aspects than English colonists.

Wiki:

Numerous other diseases were brought to Native American tribes, including measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, chickenpox and sexually transmitted diseases. Including syphilis, which was originally thought to be endemic in the Americas, but recent scientific research has now shown it originated in Europe. Each of these diseases brought destruction through sweeping epidemics, involving illness and extensive death. Many Native American tribes experienced extensive depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of tribal life lost due to disease. Additionally, singular tribes also neared extinction after facing severely destructive spread of disease.

There was indeed a holocaust. But largely an inadvertent one.

Cheers.

[Erwin]

I am happy to hear that Childress, as it means that the US settlers were nowhere in the same league as the Nazis. Moral relativity is a seemingly interesting academic discussion. But, when your family has direct experience of it, it's takes one a completely different hue.

My family was from Poland and Estonia, so they got "atrocified" by both sides and I may be in the unique position of being able to can comprehend both arguments here.

The main difference to me is that the Soviets were primarily inhumanely brutal to their own population with the rationale that national survival was at stake. The Nazis were inhumanely brutal to other countries' populations, cos they wanted slave labor and planned the extermination of Poles, Gypsies, unhealthy people, Slavs, Jews, Gays, and anyone else who may have disagreed with them.

(And I see the Japs in a similar light as well. When I visited, I was happy to write in their "weepy" Hiroshima memorial book the reasons why nuking them was entirely justified.)

[agusto]

And I see the Japs in a similar light as well. When I visited, I was happy to write in their "weepy" Hiroshima memorial book the reasons why nuking them was entirely justified.)

That was something quite inappropriate to do IMO. It almost sounds like it did offend you that the Japanese mourn for the more than hundred thousand civillians that were killed in Hiroshima. It doesnt matter weather or not the attacks are morally, politically or strategically justifieable. The death of so many people is always a great tragedy, both for the individuals and their families, and that is what the memorial is about. If you went to a german military cementry, would you write in the memorial book there that the death of all those people buried there was politically/strategically/morally justified? If you did, you would have absolutely missed point of what is the purpose of a cementry.

[Aragorn2002]

http://russianhistoryblog.org/2011/02/atrocities-in-east-prussia-1914/

Interesting article about Russian attrocities in Eastern Prussia 1914. Nothing to do with revenge, just business as usual.

[sburke]

(And I see the Japs in a similar light as well. When I visited, I was happy to write in their "weepy" Hiroshima memorial book the reasons why nuking them was entirely justified.)

You didn't really do that did you?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

That was something quite inappropriate to do IMO. It almost sounds like it did offend you that the Japanese mourn for the more than hundred thousand civillians that were killed in Hiroshima. It doesnt matter weather or not the attacks are morally, politically or strategically justifieable. The death of so many people is always a great tragedy, both for the individuals and their families, and that is what the memorial is about. If you went to a german military cementry, would you write in the memorial book there that the death of all those people buried there was politically/strategically/morally justified? If you did, you would have absolutely missed point of what is the purpose of a cementry.

Yes Hiroshi,a and Nagasaki were awful acts as was the fire bombing of Japanese and German cities in which both Britain and the US were involvedOn the other hands the Japanese committed many appalling acts eveyone will agree were war crimes.I don;t think any of the major belligerants came out of the war with clean hands. Some hands tough were dirtier than others. WW2, like all wars was a humen trajedy and this conflict was certainly among the worst. That perhaps wa why there were war crimes trials. However, the victors were nt in the dock themselves along with the defeated. That howevers does not exclude the victors from having to face the judgement of history.

[Fernando]

Thanks to the Spanish who, by the way, were far more ruthless in other aspects than English colonists.

What aspects?

[Sgt Joch]

you guys all seem to forget it was not the US, UK, Canada, USSR et.al. that started the war, it was the Germans and Japanese and they then refused to give up until their countries were torched.

As the old saying goes, "you reap what you sow".

[sburke]

you guys all seem to forget it was not the US, UK, Canada, USSR et.al. that started the war, it was the Germans and Japanese and they then refused to give up until their countries were torched.

As the old saying goes, "you reap what you sow".

True, but that does not absolve us of following a code of conduct. If we do not hold ourselves to a better standard, then it simply becomes a schoolyard argument of "you started first!"

Personally I have waffled over the years over the atomic bomb. However when it comes down to it, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings caused fewer casualties than the firebombing of Tokyo and the human cost for both Japan and the nations at war with it would have been dramatically higher if Japan was not forced somehow to overcome the a**holes in the Military who refused to recognize 1. they had lost and 2. to stop making their people pay for the military's stubborn arrogance. Even when the Emperor had decided to end the war those bastards attempted a coup so they certainly weren't motivated by some "honorable" divine worship of the Emperor. They were just d**ks. End result is I have to say if I were in Truman's shoes I'd have likely made the same call, however I in no way think that warrants defacing a peace symbol and memorial.

[Childress]

What aspects?

The Spanish- and Portuguese- were even more thoroughly murderous. And tended to enslave the native populations. Starting with Columbus. We Anglos, or at least a regional segment of us, already had slaves. There was not an inconsiderable number of American Indians in the South who owned Black slaves.

I will say this: the Conquistadors were the toughest, most intrepid and resourceful invaders the world has ever seen. If there existed a measuring device such as a Cojones Grandes Scale these guys would break it. The conquest of Mexico by Cortes and his slender band of warriors is the most mind-blowing film never made.

[Sgt Joch]

True, but that does not absolve us of following a code of conduct. If we do not hold ourselves to a better standard, then it simply becomes a schoolyard argument of "you started first!"

agreed, but again, the western allies did hold themselves to a higher standard.

Everything they did was either accepted warfare at the time (i.e. unrestricted submarine warfare, strategic bombing of civilians) or much milder than anything the Germans/Japanese ever did (i.e. shooting of prisoners).

The only reason posters keep harping on the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan is that it is really the only questionable moral action and then only if you use 2014 standards.

What many people seem to forget is that the Germans and Japanese started the trend. The Germans bombed Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Belgrade, Moscow, Leningrad, etc., etc. The Western Allies were just better at it.

[Aragorn2002]

The problem with the Japanese is that they still see themselves as victims of the war. As a dutchman with quite a few elderly friends (dutchmen and Indo-dutchmen) who lived and suffered in the Dutch East Indies during the war under the cruelty of the Japs I'm also disgusted by the Japanese approach of the war in the Pacific. A brother of my grandfather died in one of their camps after being tortured to death in the most sadistic way. I understand Erwin. What the Japs did to Europeans and Indo-Europeans (and the Chinese, Korean etc. etc.) was almost as bad as what the Germans did to the Jewish people. Imagine the Germans having monuments for their war criminals. Well, the Japs have.

[agusto]

Imagine the Germans having monuments for their war criminals. Well, the Japs have.

The Hiroshima memorial that we were talking about is not a memorial for war criminals.

[Aragorn2002]

I know that. I'm refering to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. The same victim culture.

[pnzrldr]

Conversely, my Grandmother-in-law was imprisoned for three years here in the U.S. - a (fairly benign) concentration camp, in Colorado - simply by virtue of her Japanese ancestry. Funny thing is, she was told at the time and still believes to a degree today that it was for her own protection. Some of her family's friends were substantially harassed, vandalized and even attacked. Much of their property was never returned or recovered. But she doesn't much resent her incarceration. With a degree in history, I have found it of overriding importance to remember and really try to internalize that people 'back then' (whenever back then was) had a different set of values. They didn't think exactly the way we do, had fundamentally different beliefs about what was or was not acceptable and right, and looked at the world through an entirely different contextual lens. Read some contemporary thoughts on dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Not much debate on the rectitude, but rather regret that we only had two and couldn't have dropped them sooner. The polarization or dehumanization of "us" and "them" - allies and enemies - was very, very deep, and few people were prepared to shed tears for foreign civilians suffering the agonies of war. Take a look at historical newspaper cartoons to gain a quick appreciation. Times have changed, for good or ill, and we should remember it. We should also acknowledge that not everyone in the world today thinks as we do. My tours to Iraq and Afghanistan highlighted that stark reality to me very clearly. Never forget that there are people in the world who hate us - all of us lumped into the 'west,' and they remain fully prepared to die just to do us harm.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

you guys all seem to forget it was not the US, UK, Canada, USSR et.al. that started the war, it was the Germans and Japanese and they then refused to give up until their countries were torched.

As the old saying goes, "you reap what you sow".

Or more accurately their governments. These were totalitarian governments as we know and most people would have had little choice, often perhaps too scared to speak out. And the Soviets have to be assigned a level of responsibility having signed the Molotov - Ribbentop Pact essentially giving Hitler a free hand and carving up Poland. And the Western powers have to take a lot of the blame for their policy of appeasement pre war. Understandable as their reasons might be (nobody wanted a repeat of |WW1 the end resutt was opposite of what was intended and perhaps infinitely worse than a smaller war fought in the ealy to mid 1930s/ True the Allies were in no shape for a war but then germany, Italy andeven Japan were not in a far better state.

It was the ordinary people who provided the cannon fodder and suffered under the bombing and shell fre. How many ordinarypeople on either side really waned the war their leaders told them to fight. I am sure there were quite a few who didwant the war in the Axis Powers but did everyone feel this way or were they just doing what they were told because they had to,

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The problem with the Japanese is that they still see themselves as victims of the war. As a dutchman with quite a few elderly friends (dutchmen and Indo-dutchmen) who lived and suffered in the Dutch East Indies during the war under the cruelty of the Japs I'm also disgusted by the Japanese approach of the war in the Pacific. A brother of my grandfather died in one of their camps after being tortured to death in the most sadistic way. I understand Erwin. What the Japs did to Europeans and Indo-Europeans (and the Chinese, Korean etc. etc.) was almost as bad as what the Germans did to the Jewish people. Imagine the Germans having monuments for their war criminals. Well, the Japs have.

Might be true for someof the Japanese. Certainly many soldiers were perpatratorsnot victms. But the women and children cetainly can be seen as victms as can other non combatants. The same can besaid for every civillian non combatent in every country involved

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The Spanish- and Portuguese- were even more thoroughly murderous. And tended to enslave the native populations. Starting with Columbus. We Anglos, or at least a regional segment of us, already had slaves. There was not an inconsiderable number of American Indians in the South who owned Black slaves.

I will say this: the Conquistadors were the toughest, most intrepid and resourceful invaders the world has ever seen. If there existed a measuring device such as a Cojones Grandes Scale these guys would break it. The conquest of Mexico by Cortes and his slender band of warriors is the most mind-blowing film never made.

Nobody has a monopoly on innocence or guilt. Pretty much everyonehasfought warsof agression atne time or another and as committed some form of atrocity.in the process. Somehowever havebehaved worsethan others.

[agusto]

Or more accurately their governments. These were totalitarian governments as we know and most people would have had little choice, often perhaps too scared to speak out.

The Germans elected the NSDAP (last Reichstag election in 1933: 43,9 %). When Hitler completely took over power (Ermächtigungsgesetz) later in 1933 this went according to the laws of the Weimar Republic and in accordance with all other political parties except the Socialist and Communist parties. The germans did have a choice and they chose Hitler who was openly speaking out against democracy even long before he got into power.

[Childress]

I find it interesting that the imposition of slavery or virtual serfdom seems most characteristic of aristocratic or absolutist regimes. Or totalitarian, if you will. Certain fibers or crops like sugar or cotton are, of course, being labor intensive, more amenable to mass forced labor. But slavery never really took hold in the north eastern American colonies unlike the more aristocratic South. Immigration in the former was more middle class in character. Spanish expansion in the New World was Crown driven. Retired Conquisatadors litigated for titles.

[Collingwood]

The Germans elected the NSDAP (last Reichstag election in 1933: 43,9 %).

...

The germans did have a choice and they chose Hitler who was openly speaking out against democracy even long before he got into power.

True, they did have a choice. But using the 43.9% figure you quote above, 56.1% (more than half) did not choose Hitler. The people, per se, had no say in Hitler becoming Chancellor - that appointment was made by Von Hindenburg. The Germans were not blameless, but their political system was in a total mess and things were pretty murky.

Richard Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" is a good and pretty thorough overview of the circumstances.