WW2 was a criminal act

[Guest BillWood]

OT? Yes and no.

Hitler and his minions started WW2 for one reason, to depopulate Europe of ALL peoples and to occupy and re colonize it with Germanic people. It was an act of criminals, not a modern State, but a crime "family". No single valid reason existed for this war. Some say the terms of the Armistice was too harsh, the reparations to extreme. Bull. The terms after WW2 were much worse, the country dismembered, its politcal leaders arrested, tried, imprisoned and executed, the reperations many fold greater, the understandable "reactive terror" by the Soviets, and still, within 10 years, West Germany had become the most powerful economy in Europe and has now become a massive stalwart of capitalism, democracy and peace.

SS was created as a political bodyguard for the party and the state. First mission was to eliminate the SA, after that, all other opposition to 'The Plan', internal or external.

Was Peiper not a member of the vaunted "military branch" of the SS?

Mass recruiting to form a large SS army was borne of a neccessity to counter the traditional German army and the Prussian Officer corps, thus it was designed to threaten and diminish the importance of the citizen army of Germany.

Waffen SS was an evil sub orginisation to the main SS, and despite the innocence of any draftees or noble volunteers, we can be relatively certain that the new soldier would certainly know quickly what the true purpose was.

No defections from the SS or Wermacht either as the Germans executed several thousands of Germans that tried to leave the military.

So much German service in the late war period was through fear, not patriotism.

The counter balance worked, for awhile.

As evidenced by the traveling photo album show going on in Germany now, the vaunted Wermacht was as culpable in this grand mass murder/repopulation scheme.

The Luftwaffe, after all, initiated the concept of terror bombing at Rotterdam, certainly no SS in this orginisation.

Unfortunately, Nazism proved true the maxim that "evil must often be defeated with greter horrors", so the Allies learned to do greater "terror bombings" as at Dresden or Tokyo, or mass killing as the Russians and Poles practiced against Jews late and post war. One can argue that even the so called "liberal man of the people" Bill Clinton tore a page from Hitler and Georing's book for guidance in terror bombing Serbia when attacking military targets proved ineffective.

Now, I am not going to hate anyone for differing opinions, but I will sugest that we all need to learn more about this subject from our own readings and experiences. The best wargamers are objective students of history, the Nazi loving types I have encountered in wargaming scare me, many of which who absolutely refuse to beleive the Germans did anything wrong. Thank God they are wargamers, for in another situation many would become brain numbed followers of a Nazi second coming.

Ethnically, I am a blond-haired, blue eyed American of German descent from the Baltic regions, no Jews, no Slavs, no Gypsies, so no personal axe to grind.

AMOF, I am a member of the "unprotected class" of Americans, the white male under 41.

(Just came back from a seminar on Human Resources and Emploment Harrassment, so it is perfectly legal to cuss me, berate me, and be prejudiced against me and I cannot sue you ).

Since I am preaching to the congegration, I expected a limited but vocal counter response, so I am hunkered down for it, though I will add nothing more to what is said on this subject at this forum.

[Guest Zigster]

Most of what you say is technically true, but only from the human standpoint of the 20th century. Unfortunately, governments, then, now, a thousand years ago, are not run with much regard to the human standpoint.

Governments are like any other organization, be it your local boyscouts or a multi-national corporation. They adhere to the same hierarchy of needs that individuals do: To survive, to have security, to grow, and eventually to reach a form of self-actualization. They achieve this through the accumulation of power.

Nazi Germany was a rather unique manifestation in the modern western world. However, I would not class it as "criminal". Values change. What is a crime today can be the norm tomorrow. It does not serve the cause of history to cast value judgments over the years.

For an example, by all the criteria you have mentioned, Athens during the classical period would rate as a criminal regime, bereft of redemption. Yet we admire that which was good about it and don't dwell overmuch on its slavery, belligerence and corruption. Had Nazi Germany survived more than twelve years, no doubt it would have eventually made its own more useful contributions to humanity as a whole, whether it wanted to or not. Individuals do great things -- governments merely govern.

I hate to play the Devil's Advocate here, but when we begin to brand governments as "good" and "bad" then we will always fall short.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa!

[Mattias]

-

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-29-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

Zig, the term you're talking about is "historical relativism," right? I sure hope so, cause that would mean I've actually been able to remember something from college.

DjB

[dumbo]

Actually I find this a tricky area. Obviously one feels nothing but horror for all the victims of WW2 however this MUST include the German Civillians killed by Allied bombers and the largest forced migration in European history which happened to germans after WW2 as the victors booted out ethnic germans from disputed areas.

When it comes to monsters I feel a nasty sick feeling in my stomach when people just mention Hitler but omit Stalin and Mao who killed far more people and in stalins case at least with sadistic pleasure.

It is also tragic that for many people the Holocaust was just about killing Jews. It is to the credit of many Israeli Holocaust foundations that they have now taken it upon themselves to help the other victims as well such as Gypsies (who were virtually wiped out on some occupied territories) and other targetted groups.

What is my point here? I dislike this judgemental attitude that the Germans are monsters. All of the nations in WW2 have things to be ashamed of. My country, Britain, should hang its head in shame not only for imperialism but for its willfull terror bombing campaign. The USA has forever a cloud over it for the dropping of the atmoic bombs on civillian cities.

Let me make it clear, I am very proud of my nations servicemen who died to defend Britain and obviously my gratitude the the US soldiers who gave thier lives to help is unbounded. However I can feel this gratitude without assuming that everything the british government (or US) was "in the name of freedom" or other such slogans. Germans, Russians and Japanese can all take pride in the courage of thier fighting men.

I have to agree with Zig here that if one wants to apply morality to various governments or nations then you always end up having to draw an arbitary line in history somewhere. Its easy to forget the terribly unjust peace designed to cripple Germany in 1918 and the justified resentment that caused.

Does it excuse genocide? No of course not. But students of history should attempt at least to understand motives and not rush to blanket moral judgements.

Hmm I am not sure what my point is here re reading my post. I guess the more I have read of history the more clouded my judgement gets and the more my moral judgements fall away. Just thought I would share my jumbled thoughts on this very sensitive topic.

[Bullethead]

I guess I'm just cynical, but I see only 3 motives for ALL human activities: greed, sex, and revenge. Or, looked at slightly differently, all human activities belong to one of 3 classes: feeding, f***ing (in their most general senses), and, because there's never enough of either to go around, fighting. I think WW2 can easily fit under either definition. Therefore, it was no more criminal than any other human activity. And no more righteous, either.

-Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-31-2000).]

[Goanna]

I find myself in major concurrance with much of that provided by Bill, Zigster and Dumbo from my own perspective.

However, I think it is inflammatory to compare Bill Clinton with Adolf Hitler. Philanderer though he may be, his record will hardly be considered on par with one of the craziest, evil ****ers who ever lived.

Perhaps one good thing has already come from the German period in the mid 20th century, their engineering success. Because lets face it, they made some very nice **** for the time. This is what I explore with games like CM. I can enjoy driving their tanks and operating their machine gun squads without having to be immersed in the evil at the time.

And if playing a game like this also continually provides me with a reminder of the painful history, so be it. Lest we forget, right?

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No single valid reason existed for this war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. WWII was a continuation of WWI. If not Hitler, someone else.

[iggi]

The irony is that Hitler wanted a better world, (for his people). He wanted to destroy what he believed evil.

However, what empire that has tried to dominate the world has not shed blood?

It's human nature but this time it was filmed.

Reasons aside, the WW2 German war machine was the most efficient the world had ever know. If the military side was just a bunch of naked savages with spears, I'm sure no one would be interested in wargaming that.

[Ron]

Hey Bullethead, you forgot another motive:

Fear.

[Guest GriffinCheng]

I agree that WW2 in the West is just the continuation of WW1. In fact the diplomatic failure of the Western powers during 1920's had indirectly pursade Japan and Germany to go agression agains their neighbours.

As a reminder, Soviet Russia was also very agressive towards her neighbours such as Poland, Finland and the Baltic States. The outbreak of WW2 had given the Soviets a golden chance to swallow her surrounding states. However, Hilter's solution to the East in 1940 made Soviet paid back -- at a high price. If Hilter or anyone else (I would like to stress that even if Hilter did not rise to power, the situation of German would have created another one) did not fire the first shot, Stalin was very likely to do it himself...(sounds like C&C:RA)

On the other side of the Planet, many Asians would remember the horrors of the Japanese rule during WW2, in the name of "liberisation from Western colonial rule". Actually, the colonial ruler was just subsititued by Japanese.

Griffin

[Guest PeterNZ]

WW2 etc.

Well I think it's worth throwing more debate in here than the simple hard realist view of power and large state politics.

That model is Hobbe's State of Nature where states are like individuals battling in the wasteland for pre-eminence and dominance and control of resources. It's a zero sum game where security of one side means insecurity for the other(s).

I think that ww2 really was a confluence of threads of history, chance and planning. What I mean is it's a moment of history that for me resembles the space-time comparison of a black hole, where a whole bunch of stuff reached critical mass with the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong situation.

similar forces still exsit, (and this is what worries me as a student of international politics), but mostly we refuse to recognise them or acknowlege them. For example, the richest 400 people own more than the poorest 2 billion! How long can many injustices last before something breaks? But lets not continue with scaremongering.

I think that ww2 represented a confluence of several critical situations..

1) Anger in germany over Versaille

2) Rise of communist and fascist ideologies in germany, (and much of europe) that fostered a mood of political outbidding that led to extremist approaches, (you can see that in Nth. Ireland in recent history.. where moderate voices get sidelined or coopted)

3) Instability in the 'western alliance', the group that fought germany the first time, caused by the crashes and politics of the period.

4) weakness in germanys political system.

I guess that the list could go on, but i think we should be -very- carefull not to classify Germany as some abberant case, where a political genius raised a nation out of the ashes. By all accounts, (and an awesome bbc doco i saw recently), he was hardly a political genius, (slept most of the day and ate and drank the rest), but he had many EAGER friends and assistants who he drew too him and promoted.. To me, ww2 and indeed most wars are a chaotic mess where the wrong things just keep happening till war starts. Sickeningly innevitable but also unavoidable. Like the process that led to ww1, and the Kosovo conflict.

As for a crime? Well war is a tricky area of international law. Modern international law agrees that self defence is legitemate, but defining self defence can be tricky. Israel would argue that it's pre-emtive strike in the 7 day war (correct?) was self-defence, the arabs of course, argued otherwise! No doubt Hitler would have used similar arguments.

I'm going on a bit now, but felt like a ramble

there's some ideas for ya all.

PeteRNZ

[Battlefront.com]

"Evil", as defined by those that are "Good", has been around since the beginning of time. There have been "Evil" states before, during, and since the time of the Third Reich. As some have pointed out above, the Soviet Union probably even topped the Third Reich's civilian liquidiation body count (they had a 10 million head start going into WWII). The SU has also had the distinction of ruthless oppression of a hefty number of states over a longer length of time.

And the SU is just one example. Plenty more to toss into the discussion, especially in Asia and the "developing" countries elsewhere in the world. Though not on as massive a scale as the Third Reich, in their own way many are on a par.

As for judging the causes of WWII based on its outcome, totally flawed logic. The war started due to many overlapping historical reasons, some going back hundreds of years. Was war inevitable? Yes. It would have happened sooner or later, Hitler or not. The question is what would have happened if Hitler were snuffed out in 1923? This is something that can never be answered, but I for one am at least sure the world would have been dragged into a world war, complete with MANY of the same nasty elements as the one that happened. The root causes for WWII were set in stone with WWI, so Hitler and the Nazis were just one possible result not the only one. Having studied this period of time for the last 15 years I feel very comfortable saying that.

Steve

[Mark IV]

There would have been another European/World War by now, in my opinion, if it wasn't for the atom bomb. Mutual Assured Destruction seems to have worked- so far.

Nuclear weapons have not only taken the "fun" out of major war, they have really changed the psychology of national leaders for the first time since- well, ever.

Oddly, only the pissant countries can now still contemplate full-scale war against their (pissant) neighbors. India and Pakistan is the most interesting confrontation in the world right now. The usual racial, religious, and historical animosity motivations are at work, but one wrong move and it's mushroom city. Hope they can handle it.

PS: I try to avoid discussions like this on this board, and I'm really testing/flaunting my cherished and continued Member status.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-31-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

You forget..

War is merely a continuation of policy when all means of peaceful negotiations have failed.

Qoute goes something like that...so don't flame on that.

[Guest Babra]

I found a fabulous book entitled "Germany and the Next War" written by General Friederich von Bernhardi. Essentially it outlined German plans for the poor "subhuman" slavs, how Germany must secure her dominance on the continent by defeating (though not destroying) Britain and France, how Germany's wealth and prestige must be advanced by the growth of her colonial empire, and and how Russia must inevitably dissected.

Oh yes...it was written in 1910, before the FIRST world war...

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Guest Big Time Software]

Truth is that the Nazis had hardly any original ideas. From the mundane, like uniforms and march music, to the racial and military policies, Nazism was simply a mishmosh of existing stuff cobbled together to form an often contradictory system of government.

One of the things that "historians" like Goldhagen like to igonre is the fact that the core resources the Nazis drew upon for their rabid anti-Jewish propaganda and policies came from 19th century France. And executing minorities en mas is a sad historical fact. many other European countries, in fact, had done just that within 50 years of the Nazis taking power. Other countries, like Turkey, had done theirs even more recently than that.

So again, Nazism might be repugnant, but it is hardly unique when you boil it down to its core elements. The means they chose for their ends does not make the root causes any different.

Steve

[Lee]

Zigster: You are wrong when you say that you can't really judge

whether the nazis were evil or not. They were quite clearly

evil. You base your statements on the false assumption that

there is no right and wrong. Under that sort of misguided

thinking you can say that gassing jews is fine and disecting

children in medical experiments is ok, too. Why not, there

is no right and wrong, correct? "Values

change", right? We'll

just decide for ourselves what is right and do whatever we want.

Nazis think like this and use it to justify murder on

a mass scale. If I were you I would be very uncomfortable

thinking like them.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee:

Zigster: You are wrong when you say that you can't really judge

whether the nazis were evil or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't quite what I was saying. If I did say that, then yes, I was wrong. I was saying, "Let us not view history with labels or value judgments." Whether or not they were right or wrong, doesn't change what happened. However, if I approach it from that perspective, and view my own beloved British Empire as protecting the world from the evil nazis, then I am bound to be sorely disillusioned when I recall that my own people hunted down and exterminated the Beothuk tribe for sport scarcely a century ago.

That reminds me... If Britain declared war on Germany to protect Polish Sovereignty, then why was Polish Sovereignty not secured at war's end? Because Britain is just like Germany, and declared war not out of any altruistic motives, but to remain pre-eminent in Europe, to maintain the status quo. That's what nations do.

Evil empires make for good science fiction books, but the real world is far more complex.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Lee]

Somtimes even our own countries do things that are wrong,

but that doesn't mean we can't judge the wrong doing of

others. We just have to have the guts to say when something is

wrong, whether it be something that our own nation has done

or some other nation. Stand for the truth, that's what's

important.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee:

Somtimes even our own countries do things that are wrong,

but that doesn't mean we can't judge the wrong doing of

others. We just have to have the guts to say when something is

wrong, whether it be something that our own nation has done

or some other nation. Stand for the truth, that's what's

important. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't have said it better, Lee. Cheers.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[dumbo]

PeterNZ: Good post man. I would add to that list of factors the death throes Modernity. Or to put it in a less pretentious manner the final collapse of the 19th century order and the world to trying to find a new order.

One can hardly begin to imagin the shock of these turbulent years. Not only did technology acheive the previously unimaginable (such as flight and instant long distance communication) but also the poltical revolution (Marx et al) and finally the philosophical revolution embodied in Darwin and later to a lesser extent Einstein.

I knew my grandfather rather well in England who lived through these years, he collected village history and had many photographs from the era. The change from 1910 to 1918 alone were shocking , a paved road where there had previously been a dirt track, the first tractor in the village, the mass population change as young folk in the village left to go to cities creating a community of 40 year olds and above with a few children of very young years. Amazing stuff.

And of course from 1918 onwards the WW1 memorial, dead center of the village where the names of the dead men were engraved. Every family lost at least one man in our village. It left an indelible mark.

All this happened in stable rural England. I shudder to imagine the shocks that happened elsewhere.

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 01-31-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Actually, the British fought tooth and nail in order to get Poland to be a part of the free world. However, Stalin would not hear of it, and neither Roosevelt nor Truman were willing to back Britain over Poland. Britain and a weakened France could not have taken on Russia alone, especially after 6 years of bitter fighting and/or occupation. They could have fully backed their deal with Poland, but, it would have been a fruitless gesture.

Also, it depends on your interpretation of what a Government is. Does it do what society wants it to do, or, does it tell people in the society to do what it wants. Indeed, there is a lot of both within many of the "evil" governments. The Evil, or Hitler's way was the easy route for Germany to take. The harder way would have been to stick with Democracy. Many nation's make "evil" decisions, but, most of these are done in order to protect the majority of their own civilians, or, to add to the glory of a government. If Hitler would have won, the extermination of the Jew's would be seen in EXACTLY the same light that the murder of the North American Indian is presently in, or that of the Armenians, or countless other forgotten holocaust victims.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Many nation's make "evil" decisions, but, most of these are done in order to protect the majority of their own civilians, or, to add to the glory of a government. If Hitler would have won, the extermination of the Jew's would be seen in EXACTLY the same light that the murder of the North American Indian is presently in, or that of the Armenians, or countless other forgotten holocaust victims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. On target and dead centre. When all is said and done, what is a government and what is the role of a government? Was the leadership of Nazi Germany fundamentally different from the leadership of any other nation? Were its goals different? Divergent obviously, but different? Tough questions. Every major nation and most minor ones have one or more crimes against humanity on their collective conscience in their pursuit of the public welfare, and there was nothing done in Nazi Germany that has not been done much more recently somewhere else. We just don't care as much because it's happening to "them" and not "us." The only thing shocking about the Nazi era is that it happened so close to home, right here in the western world where right and reason supposedly reign.

I will now throw in my completely subjective two cents on the good and evil of it all: It is my own personal belief that anyone who deliberately seeks power over others is fundamentally evil. It doesn't matter to me if it's an elected official or a despot. The very act of trying to elevate one's self above the masses in order to shape their perceived destiny cannot be construed as altruistic or being for the public good. I suppose that makes me an anarchist by definition, but I still sleep at night.

Put another way... People suck

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the British fought tooth and nail in order to get Poland to be a part of the free world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then they had their chance, circa 17 Sep 39, to declare war on the "other" aggressor, and they didn't.

Your response here:

That's right, they couldn't take on all the aggressors at once. So they picked a side.

Why do you suppose that was? Did the UK see a "local" threat, in terms of the traditional continental order being overturned? I would argue that the UK enlisted the US in the broader view of world events, and that the US then unpredictably took a more ideological view of things, while the UK, the more pragmatic.

The US saw the USSR as the long term primary threat, whereas the UK saw Nazi Germany as the greater threat.

"Stalin would not hear of it"; who gives a damn? Why did FDR and Churchill give a damn? Because Stalin swung a pretty big schwantz when it came to who has the most iron on the scene of "justice".

Stalin was in no condition to dictate terms in Sep 1939. Britain caved and reneged on its contractual obligation (anyway) to Poland. By the time it came back up, Poland was an administrative province of the Red Army. Explain that and we'll move on.

Otherwise, you're stuck with the fact that Britain declared war on one aggressor, but not the second, based on two weeks difference. Explanation:

Yuh. Tooth and nail.

Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is my own personal belief that anyone who deliberately seeks power over others is fundamentally evil<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and each nation "ultimately gets the leaders it deserves". Assuming we can't all make it to the polls on a daily basis, you've gotta deal with representative government. Are you going to run, or only the "fundamentally evil"?

Give me a break.