Posted on 10/25/2008 7:57:11 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
Relations between Russia and Germany have not been good since Vladimir Putin's nationalist sabre-rattling this summer, but they are about to get a whole lot worse.
A new film about to be released in Germany will force both countries to re-examine part of their recent history that each would much prefer to forget. Yet it is right that the ghastly truth should finally be acknowledged.
The movie, A Woman In Berlin, is based on the diary of the German journalist Marta Hillers and depicts the horror of the Red Army's capture of the capital of the Third Reich in April and May 1945.
Marta was one of two million German women who were raped by soldiers of the Red Army - in her case, as in so many others, several times over.
It was a feature of Russia's 'liberation' and occupation of eastern Germany at the end of World War II that is familiar enough to historians, but which neither country cares to acknowledge took place on anything like the scale it did.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yes, of course the Soviets were uncivilized brutes, not to be forgotten or lightly forgiven.
But look at reality: for every German killed by the Soviets, Germans had already killed SEVERAL Soviets. The German death toll (including allied bombings) for the war was around 7 million (mostly military), while the Soviets lost over 20 million -- and all of Europe lost 35 million killed (including 6 million Jews), the vast majority of them NOT military.
So there is simply no argument: the Germans committed FAR MORE monstrous crimes than they suffered.
Now, look at it this way: for every German woman the Soviets RAPED, the Germans sent a Jewish woman and her children to the GAS CHAMBERS!
Who would you say got the better deal?
Oh so you are one of those equalizing outcomes!!!! It really is not about actual history to you it is about punishing all for the sins/evil deeds of 'government'. Sorry I don't do equalizing outcomes, or as Bama says redistributing the wealth. God is the judge and ultimately we allllll will have opportunity to get our face to face.
My reading material growing up was allll about the evil deeds of Hitler and his campaign of destruction. My father FEARED what was done in Germany would be repeated in this nation. My uncle was one of those that entered the theater on D-Day and had his brains exposed by shrapnel. They put a metal plate in his head, sowed him up and he went on to the Battle of the Bulge, just a nobody hick American.
My own father served in Korea and it was Stalin that attempted to spread his diseased ideology across Asia, after he had agreed to leave N. Korea at the end of WWII. We stopped the Hitler expansion but have had to continually fight and stand against the granddaddy of Nazism... blood RED Communism.
Right.
My statement was that Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. And I'm saying it would be totally disingenuous to pretend that: no it wasn't the Germans it was the AUSTRIANS!
Sorry pal, but I think you're starting to go a little nuts on me here. You need to calm down and take a breath...
What did I say? Did I not say the Soviets were uncivilized brutes, not to be forgotten or lightly forgiven?
And yet you instantly want to forget that the Germans in cold blood killed many more Europeans than they themselves suffered.
So my question is: who was more brutal and uncivilized -- Soviets or Germans? I'm saying, judging by the number of dead, the Germans were several times more brutal than the Soviets EVER EVEN THOUGHT OF BEING.
Do you still disagree?
I wholeheartedly disagree. You have not even begun to calculate the numbers of victims that have been slaughtered under blood RED Communism. We stopped Hitler!!!! And 'we' ignored the head of the snake and have had to decade after decade continue to fight against the redistributive ideology of a godless system that destroys the very spirit of freedom.
Note both the language here, and the argument -- "Versailles communists and New York bankers" supposedly created a "defunct country once called Poland!"
Of course, this is pure insanity -- and we all know what KampfgruppeZ desperately wants to say, but DARE NOT!
But setting aside all that for just a second, consider this particular fact of history:
Who can tell us just which power after WWI CREATED that "defunct country once called Poland!"? Was it Russia, France or Britain? Was it the United States? Was it the "Versailles communists and New York bankers"?! LOL!!
No, no, of course not. It was none of those powers. Poland was NOT reestablished as a new country after the First World War by the WESTERN allies.
Poland WAS reestablished as a new country in 1918 by the CENTRAL POWERS (Germany!!) at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk!
The "so called country, Poland" was a creation of Germany itself! Naturally the Germans thought Poland should come 100% out of the hide of Russia, but after Germany SURRENDERED in 1918, the WESTERN ALLIES decided that at least SOME of Poland should come out of the hide of Germany too.
Anyway, I suspect that this little piece of lunacy by KampfgruppeZ is just a small tip of the iceberg of insanity he'd unleash on us, if he thought he could get away with it. ;-)
Here is a site that provides all kinds of details on who killed how many of whom in every conflict in history. This particular page looks at the blame for WWII deaths:
WWII deaths by who is to blame
As I read this, while Stalin was responsible for more deaths overall -- he had a much longer career than Hitler, and Stalin killed far more of HIS OWN PEOPLE -- but Hitler was responsible for more deaths DURING WORLD WAR TWO.
My intention is not to exaggerate or minimize the mass murders by anyone. But if you want to understand why the Western Allies sided with Stalin against Hitler, you have to study the history of that time.
I'd say this: in 1934 many Europeans feared Stalin much more than Hitler, and had Hitler played his cards right might have joined him against Stalin. But by 1939 there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind which power was the greater & more immediate threat!
Do you disagree?
I agree with no hesitation Hitler HAD to be stopped. I view history as to pre-Hitler and what the US could have done differently so there would have been NO Hitler to trash, burn and destroy peoples and a continent.
I see NO brilliance regarding this man, and have never understood what seduced a nation to come under his spell. There was nothing about him pleasing to the eye and vile evil was spewed through his mouth. I know why the US had to stop Hitler and I have NO qualms for having done so.
However, history has taught US that we were dealing with two devils and the one we sided with was no better than the one we used our blood and treasure to stop. And what did Stalin do to his part of Europe he captured?
How do you think 70 years out history will treat US for removing another Stalin/Hitler like man called Saddam. You think an assessment will be done accusing US causing more deaths?
As I said earlier history does not happen in a vacuum and since the French Revolution the Europeans as individuals, nations and a continent have NOT made wise choices. And our intellectual class have since our revolution attempted to take this nation on the same path that Europe has been on since the French Revolution.
Most of pre-war Poland was not land ruled by Imperial Germany. Only a narrow corridor to the Baltic was under the Kaiser's rule before WWI. Ninety five percent of inter-war Poland was was Polish speaking land ruled by Imperial Russia before WWI, and the Poles earned that land by defeating Lenin's Red Army in 1919. Most of what Hitler seized in 1939 had never been part of Germany.
If I understand you, you seem to be wishfully thinking, that maybe, possibly, somehow or other, the Western Allies could have defeated Hitler WITHOUT relying on Stalin, right?
Let me assure you, it could not reasonably have been done. For example, at the time of D-Day, June 1944, something like 75% of the German Army was fighting on their Eastern Front, against the Soviets. And Stalin launched a major operation to coincide with D-Day, and make certain the Germans stayed there.
If Stalin had done ANYTHING to economize on the Soviet war effort, the US and Britain could easily have faced twice the number of German divisions in France.
Point is: any suggestion that somehow the US could have defeated Nazi Germany WITHOUT the Soviet Union, is pure fantasy, imho.
Finally, I'll repeat something heard recently (don't remember just who said it), which seems to me the crux of the matter:
During the Second World War, Roosevelt and Churchill had two bad choices. They could either allow Hitler to take over ALL of Europe, or they must allow Stalin to take over the Eastern half of Europe. They chose the latter.
Would you chose otherwise?
Here's what Wikipedia says about the February 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, between Germany and Russia:
With this treaty Germany first carved the new Poland out of the Russian Empire. Later, at Versailles in 1919, Poland was expanded to include a small part of Germany.
Then, as you remind us, in 1919 Poles had to fight off the Russians, and that experience may help explain why Poles did not try to ally with Stalin against Hitler in early 1939.
I've said before, in the 1930s many Europeans were conflicted as to which threat was more dangerous -- Hitler or Stalin. The Poles decided they would rather take on Hitler than ally with Stalin!
Today, people like Pat Buchanan ("The Unnecessary War") argue that Britain's biggest mistake was to guarantee Poland's security, and Poland's mistake was -- foolishly relying on France & Britain -- to stand up and refuse Hitler what he reasonably demanded.
I don't agree, of course. I think Hitler wanted war, regardless of what the Brits or Poles did.
Most of the area today called Poland was inhabited by German tribes since before the fourth century. Territory inhabited by Germans is always German territory, period!
Yes, you are correct, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk created Poland but out of RUSSIAN TERRITORY! In fact the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and others were established out of Czarist Russian territory. So much for the WESTERN HISTORY TEACHING of greedy German territorial expansion aims during WWI. If you honestly evaluate German aims on it's eastern boarders at that time, you'll see Germany needed to remove the threat of Russia on the east boarder. By having these eastern territories split among smaller countries, a buffer was created. Thereby, protecting Germany from sudden invasion from the east (Russia). There was No German desire for more eastern territory. If there was, creating Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania out of European Russia was stupid.
Maybe one of Germany's WWI goals was to eliminate having enemies on both east & west boarders.....Naaaaa.
HUMMMMM......protect from sudden invasion from the east....hummmmm.....Naaaaa, I was just thinking, that might have helped prevent WWI.....just my little piece of lunacy.
Oh yea! The Kaiser wanted to take over the world......at least that's what the WESTERN HISTORY books say. An' heaven knows there's no reason to assume Germany should be allowed to protect Der Vaterland.
An' those valiant Allies, resisted that evil Kaiser.....yea right. The French had plotted and maneuvered for forty years to get their revenge against Germany for the Franco-Prussian War......France wanted war in the worst way (till it actually happened), as long as France had plenty of bad boys on their side.
England had a world wide empire to protect and Germany was a rapidly becoming a threat to that empire.
An' the pure, angelic Neutral USA....let's go there for a while. What does Neutral mean? A neutral country takes no side in a war between other parties. In fact, Pres. Wilson's statement on US neutrality was, " The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men's souls. We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another."
Is that the position the USA took?
Let's look at a letter dated, November 19, 1914, a letter from a Professor Munsterberg to Woodrow Wilson,
"Many of the complaints refer more to the unfriendly spirit than to the actual violation of the law. Here above all belongs the unlimited sale of ammunition to the belligerents. The administration originally advised Mr. Morgan that the making of loans to the nations at war would not be looked upon with favor by the President, and Mr. Morgan canceled the plans. This attitude has been given up; the State Department has emphasized that money and arms may be sold to the belligerents, while evidently the friends of peace had firmly hoped that the President would denounce the sale of ammunition or any other sale which would be likely to prolong the war. Indeed our friends of peace must regret this encouraging attitude with reference to the sale of agencies of destruction, but the friends of Germany cannot forget that this sympathetic attitude of the State Department under the conditions which objectively exist is not only helpful to the prolongation of the war, but helpful exclusively to the Allies against Central Europe. The favorite interpretation of the Germans is even that the government makes itself a party to the violation of neutrality by giving clearance papers to vessels loaded with war material for England and France. They say, moreover, that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy could and did restrain the shipment of war material into Mexico. Hence he has the same power to restrain the shipment of such material to Europe...."
WELL, Well, well,(violation of neutrality by giving clearance papers to vessels loaded with war material for England and France) looks like those pesky Washington communists and New York bankers were in fact aiding those valiant Allies from the get go, all the while proclaiming USA NEUTRALITY !
Anyway, I suspect that this little piece of lunacy by KampfgruppeZ is just a small tip of the iceberg of insanity he'd unleash on us, if he thought he could get away with it. ;-)
SO, BroJoeK looks at history thru his USA SUPER PATRIOT GLASSES, an' sees the lie turned into what he thinks is truth.......so far, he's gotten away with it. ;-)
Fact remains, had the USA truly been neutral:
1) Germany would have won WWI, most likely before 1917.
2)1-2 year shorter war, saving thousands of lives on both sides.
3)Russian European territory would have remained divided into Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Keeping a buffer between Russia and Europe.
4)The starvation (killing millions in the 1920-30's) forced upon Ukraine & Belarus by their communist masters in Moscow would never have happened.
5)With a strong post WWI Germany, Russian communists would never have been able to threaten Europe
6)possibly, just possibly no 1920's depression
7)and most important no Hitler or WWII!
But we don't live in that world, WE LIVE IN THE POST WWI WORLD, created by the Allies WHERE THE CHICKENS ARE COMMING HOME TO ROOST.....I HEAR ONE NOW....BRACK, BRACK, Barack, Barrrrack, Bok, Bok, Bok.
BTW, the small tip of the iceberg of insanity is about to be unleash on you, starting Jan 20th 2009, from WASHINGTON DC.
Ich bin froh über Ihre Schmerzen.
Now you've changed the subject again -- so you lose again!
I think we've now established AS FACT, that Poland in 1939 was not a "so called country," but a REAL country, where REAL Poles lived, and had always lived -- a new country first created by GERMANY in 1918.
Yes, in 1919, the Western Allies ADDED TO Poland a small piece of Germany, as JUST PUNISHMENT for Germany's first STARTING, then LOSING the First Wold War.
And I'll say again, the PUNISHMENT Germany received was fair, just and MINOR compared to the punishment Germany itself meted out to, say, Russia or little NEUTRAL Belgium. Or compared to the punishment of the Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman Turk Empires.
But Germany refused to accept its punishment, and so began ROUND TWO in 1939. This time the punishment of Germany was MUCH more severe, especially as regards Poland, and will NEVER be reversed.
Here's the bottom line: In 1914 the German Kaiser's government began the First World War because they believed they could WIN it, and they were ALMOST right. In 1939 Hitler began the Second World War because, A) he did not believe Germany had been defeated in the First War, and B) he believed Germay would WIN another war.
So, the most serious problem Germans had was, they believed their own lies! And it cost them most grievously. Now, when do you suppose you will stop telling those lies??
Obviously, Germany's war aims in 1914 included eliminating France and Russia as potential threats to Germany. That's the reason the Kaiser FIRST declared war on Russia, then on LITTLE NEUTRAL BELGIUM, then on France.
NONE of those countries EVER declared war on Germany, and NONE made ANY military moves TOWARDS GERMANY before Germany declared war.
For example, consider: in late July 1914, Russia was starting to mobilize against AUSTRIA to protect its ally SERBIA, when Germany declared war on Russia.
Then, as required by the "Schlieffen Plan," Germany declared war on LITTLE NEUTRAL BELGIUM, and on France.
France, hoping to avoid ANY provocative acts, had ordered its forces to MOVE BACK SIX MILES AWAY from the border with Germany. It didn't matter. The German plan called for war, so there was war.
On Germany's territorial ambitions, we should note that in the East, under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, new countries like Poland were German protectorates, ruled over by German princes (Hitler's plan in 1941 was pretty much the same, with Nazi overlords replacing the German WWI era princes).
In the West in 1918, before the Germans had given up all hope of winning, their minimum territorial demands were: A) to annex Luxembourg, B) to annex the French iron and coal fields in Lorraine.
Nor were the reparations Germany actually paid out of proportion to those Germany had imposed on France in 1871, on Belgium in 1914 or on Russia in 1918.
So, I'll say again, the peace terms imposed on Germany at Versailles in 1919 were more than fair and just, when compared to the terms Germany imposed on its victims.
Besides that, even at the moment of German SURRENDER, there were many Germans who believed they had not been fairly defeated, and so MUST have another go at it SOONER OR LATER.
In other words, it DIDN'T MATTER WHAT terms Versailles imposed -- easy or harsh -- Germany was eventually going to start another war regardless.
After all, why should they accept ANY terms, when by rights (in their minds), they should have been the VICTORS?
No. Stalin was already killing people hand over fist by 1939. Not to mention the night of the long knives in Germany in 1934, and the Kristalnatch in 1938. I could go on.
I see You'll never stop your lies!
BUT, Still hearing Barraakkkk, Barraakk, Baraak, Bok, Bok, Bok.
AND, GERMANY will NEVER have a half breed from KENYA as president.....snicker, snicker, snicker!
On the other hand, the scene of Magda Goebbels poisoning her children is one of the most harrowing things I’ve ever seen.
“.....the US Army is the only army in the world that people run to, not away, from.”
######
A point unique in history and lost on our country’s internal enemies; the historical illiterates in the Democrat party and the LeftMedia. Not to mention lesser lights like the sickeningly preachy, anti-military sitcom M*A*S*H.
Sorry to tell you this, but YES! The American MSM and liberal left already believe that America killed (or caused to be killed) more people during the last 70 years than any other country!
This is sad, but very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.