Apologies for such a late reply, did not notice.
To folks like you “history” begins in the summer of 1939.
Sometimes the really brainy begin in summer of 1914.
It always seems to work in your minds, and therefor I can’t fault you for it I guess.
But it is supremely dishonest.
How many groups fighting aggressive war or driven to war or innocently responding to agression have had an explicit or implicit policy of genocide against their enemies?
Uncountable multitudes is of course the honest answer.
Amongst them English,Amerinds,Belgians,Toltecs,French,Ibo,Russians,Arabs,Japanese,Burmans,Chinese,Turks,Swedes,Aztec,Inca,Dutch,Serbs,Watusi,Scots,Romans,Peshtuns,Mongols,Spartans,Athenians, Trojans,Persians,.........
Not, as Seifeld would say, there is anything wrong with that.
I fail to see why you think my reply was dishonest.
I never said the German policy of genocide was unique or even particularly unusual, except in its “industrial” and modern infrastructure.
I said that those who start such wars had better win them or the blowback can be remarkably unpleasant for them.
As in, “those who strike the king had better kill him.”
Pardon me if I misunderstood the implications of some of your posts, but you seemed to be obsessing about the Soviet massacres of German civilians, an odd obsession given the post I’m responding to here.
If you consider the the German genocide policy no big deal, I’m confused why you consider the considerably less extensive Soviet policy of the same line against ethnic Germans to be a BD.
There is also the fact that a goodly number (but percentage unknown since the killers didn’t particularly care) of the German civilians killed by the Soviets were willing and even enthusiastic participants in the earlier killing of Russian, Ukrainian and Polish civilians, not to mention Jews.