Attempting to defend Nazi Germany?

nonsense.

As this is relevant to the thread I will tell you what I think. If in your eyes it makes me a neo nazi, then so be it. If to you defending the honour of German soldiers makes me a neo nazi, then so be it. I'm used to political bigotry. In fact I am far from a neo nazi, I am a democrat. Here goes..

The majority of German soldiers and it's Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish allies and hundreds of thousands of foreign Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS volunteers on the Eastern front were fighting for a better Europe, a united Europe along the lines of Napoleon a century ago. There was nothing wrong with that dream, there was only sometihng wrong with the National socialist regime in charge of making it happen. Had it not been for these young men, Stalin's soldiers would be marching under the Arc de Triumph in Paris sometime in the early 1940s. The Eastern front is a cause I am deeply sympathetic too, even though I have nothing but contempt for National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Communism was the black death of the 20th century. Even General Vlasov, commander of the Wehrmacht Russian Army of liberation, found National Socialism less repugnant. That is why so many Estonians, Latvians, Ukranians, etc volunteered to fight the black death of Bolshevism despite the cruel occupation of the "Reichcommissars".

The Bolsheviks wouldn't have stopped in Poland in 1939, when they met the Wehrmacht during the uneasy Ribbentrop Molotov pact. The Bolshevik Satan inspired disease had swallowed the Baltic Nations, Bessarabia followed by a frenzy of mass murder by the NKVD, tried to take Finland and almost gained control in Spain, where they committed numerous crimes. Bolshevism was committed to global expansions and world wide conquest, as stated by Marx, who wanted a one world state, which ironically some neo cons are pressing for right now. We owe a debt to the men from 30 different nations who served in the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and the armed forces of Hungary, Romania, and Finland who died in the struggle against Stalin. The fact that the National Socialist regime and Adolf Hitler were evil and genocidal does not detract from this. In a society free of globalization and communism and political correctness, they would surely go down as a triumph of the human spirit engaged in a fight against Communism.

To this day, veterans of the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht are still being harrased by a vocal group of nutjobs, who considers their service on “the losing side” renders them fair game for harassment. To this day veterans of the Waffen-SS do not receive veterans’ pensions from the German government, despite the fact that they gave up their youth for their country. Their widows and families do not receive any help either. The son of the famous Jochen Peiper was harassed in Germany just because of his father. Hopefully he is having a better like in the USA now. Look at what happened with John Demanjuk in the USA. He now faces possible deportation despite the fact that he was innocent of the charges he was accused of. The numbers of “nazi hunters” has sure increased. I am proud of presenting these men as they were, nothing more or less than men who who put on a uniform and fought for their country. I know I will be considered a neo-Nazi by some idiots who don’t know what they are talking about, but frankly I don’t care. Were I am neo-Nazi, many of the people I call friends would drop me like a stone in the water.

German behavior in the east was most importantly based on the attitudes of European colonialism. After all, they did not have a vast empire, like Britain did. So they looked for one in the east, so the "Reichcommisarrs" treated the populations badly, just as Britain treated many of its subject peoples badly. After all, the demagogue Adolf Hitler himself admired the British Empire and admired it's ruthlessness.

So what Germany did in the east was basically a large scale version of what other colonial empires did. Explained, but this is not what certain people in the modern Western world want to hear, other in the USA when the left rant about the USA being a genocidal power. So the Europeans concentrate their attentions on Germany's war crimes in WWII. The modern world has nailed Germany to the cross and used it as a whipping boy for all it's sins. They make it seem that only Germans were anti Semitic and killed Jews. What a false statement. Just look at the anti Semitic behavior of other western countries over the past few hundred years. Look at the pogroms in Poland and Imperial Russia. Not mentioning the anti Semitic collaboration in the holocaust in the occupied territories, with the deportations. So, these facts are conveniently ignored since it isolates the whipping boy scapegoat Germany even more. Anti Semitism runs deep in the guilty souls of Europe, so people want to rid it and pin the blame solely on Germany. Especially some people who drone about it to gain more money instead of genuine sympathy for the victims. These people are much more of a threat to victims of German atrocities than a lying denier ever was. There is much more information on this in the book "The holocaust industry" by the American Jewish author Norman Finklestein.

Then it comes to the question of all the lies and abuses thrown at the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Even if some soldiers in the Wehrmacht, though not a small amount but definetly far from the majority, mistreated and shot people, it hardly speaks out as the holy truth of the Wehrmacht. Anyone with knowledge of the German military ethos understands that these actions run contrary to the German military code of discipline, order, and honour. See all the German court martials. Read "The Wehrmacht war crimes tribunal" by Alfred de Zayas. Don't forget the fact that rape was punished by death in the German military. Just check out the "10 commandments of the German soldier", on the Soldbuch of every German soldier, which stated:

In many memoirs of German soldiers and officers there are many instances of the good relations that existed between the Wehrmacht / Waffen-SS and the civilian population until the Gestapo and the Nazi party arrived. Have people not forgotten all the children produced by the romances of local girls and German soldiers? German soldiers were not the ruthless Nazis as portrayed by the mass media. Most were not Nazis and good natured, ordinary people.

The fact remains that many objective military historians agree that overall generally with exceptions, despite the attempts of the Bartovs, the Wehrmacht is deemed to have fought a clean war by the standards of the time, despite some people not knowing what the Geneva Convention back then. They sound cruel to us, but the rules of war back then were tougher. This applies to WWII, as the Geneva conventions and the laws of war have changed.

The problem with discussing such issues is that one often finds himself dealing with persons who close themselves to anything else than propaganda and what they believe is the truth, and they degenerate to throwing insults like "neo-Nazi", etc. Add on the facts that these people have the control of the mass media.

And not to mention, the heresy of mentioning Stalin's crimes, which in some people's eyes automatically assigns the person who said it into a category of revisionists and holocaust deniers. The Bolsheviks murdered far more innocent people than the Nazis did, this does not excuse or minimize what the Nazis did, but it does give an insight into why some people feel that victims of Nazism are somehow more special and more important than victims of Bolshevism, by never mentioning them in the mass media, which is offensive in the extreme to Gulag survivors, just as much as a holocaust denier would offend holocaust survivors. Yet, Gulag survivors hardly have any mass media at their control. You see, it's all about money. They make money out of this, so they drone about it. The world is run by money nowadays. Which brings me to the final question which brings this to an end. What makes the murder of a Slav or a Jew any worse than a murder of a German or anyone else for racial, religious or political reasons?

K

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on September 16, 2006 11:51 am

[b]With regards the 10 Commandments on the Soldbuch you posted every one of them was routinely broken by German soldier's, with the knowledge and consent of the higher command.

With regards: opfergang.de an obvious neo-nazi website trying to promote that the poor germans were the victims.

NAZI RAUS

Kevin in Deva :D

This post has been edited by Victor on September 19, 2006 07:02 am

ah, not surpirsed the insults have started to come in at me. I was simply drawing up a comparison about money making. In fact, I'm an Chinese with a US passport as well, so technically I'm an "immigrant", yet I am not bent on money making and assimilate myself into Western culture. (I presently don't live in the US though)I 'm hardly surpirsied. If you are so keen on my political views, I'm simply a conservative democrat and despise National Socialism.

K

I now have the time to answer the points of "New Connaught Ranger".

You claim.

A complex issue indeed. Have you forgotten the case in Poland where an SS-VT man was tried by a Wehrmacht court martial for burning down a synagouge and killing 40 Jews and was sentanced to death, but unfortuantely Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler managaed to cancel the order? Actually about the Commissar order, althought they were issused by Feldmarschall Keitel, many German commanders chose to not pass it on, with notable brutal exceptions like Feldmarschall Reichenau. Feldmarschall von Rundsdedt managed to contain the Commando order, with an exception of a Kriegsmarine execution or hand over to the SD.

so to you Germans can't be victims eh? I wonder how you would feel if your family was German, you were in WWII and they all died via an Allied bombing raid or Red Army brutality? What if one of the murdered Germans there was your father, mother, brother or sister?

K

This post has been edited by Victor on September 16, 2006 11:53 am

I find this very hard to believe and even harder to prove.

None of the nationalities you mentioned were motivated by anything else but their own national interests.

Hitler did not go to war in the East to "protect" Europe, but to protect his own interests in Europe, which an ever-strengthening Soviet Union was threatening. I doubt that the average German soldier was fighting for Europe, but more because of his sense of duty and discipline in which he was brought up. Obviously a part were touched by the Nazi propaganda, which, especially from 1943 onwards, when things started to go bad, began playing the defense of Europe card intensively. The majority were just following orders.

Romania went to war againstg the Soviet Union, because of the June 1940 aggression on its territory. War became pretty unpopular once the Dnestr frontier was reached. The troops continued to fight, but with less and less enthusiasm, especially the common infantryman. The so-called elite troops (like the cavalry and mountain troops) showed more dedication because of their higher level of training, but not because they wanted to fight for "Europe", no matter what the official propaganda was saying. The "Crusade against Bolshevism" was void, especially while fighting side-by-side an officially atheist regime, like the Nazis.

Finns are the perfect example of fighting for the national interest, because they stopped once it was reached. How did they fight for "Europe"? By staying in their trenches for several years?

Hungarians, again, did not have any serious motivation. Both them and the Romanians would have fought eachother over transylvania, than fight against the Soviet Union. If it wasn't for the contest with Romania to please Hitler in regards with Transylvania, they would have had no actual reason to send the 2nd Army in Russia in 1942.

The Slovaks were motivated in the early years of the campaign, but later on they ended up not caring much about the "fight for Europe" and more about the fight for their own country.

The volunteers from all over Europe don't really count as they didn't outweight their co-nationals fighting on the Allied side.

IMO, one thing is certain. WWII was just another war motivated by national political and economical interests and not "just causes". Even though some, especially in the loosing side, tried to turn it into a fight against the danger of Communism, in order to cover their many sins and to motivate their initiation of the hostilities. Like I said, it was not a fight against the danger of Communism, but against a contendant for European domination. And the crimes comitted by both cannot be justified in any way, especially with "fight for Europe" or "fight for freedom" slogans.

Let's stay clear of current politics and stick to the topic.

Also, members are urged to stay away from insulting eachother, because that only leads to posts being deleted. Discuss without passion. The war is over for more than 60 years.

I never stated anywhere in any of my posts that the German people could not be a victim, in all wars civilians have borne the brunt of casualties.

But it has to be remembered that German civilians were not the only victims, your statement about the feelings I might have had had it been my family who had been "and they all died via an Allied bombing raid or Red Army brutality? What if one of the murdered Germans there was your father, mother, brother or sister?"

Well it has to be remembered here just who invaded Poland, Russia, France, etc..etc.. it is indeed convienently forgotten by you when the Lunatic Hitler started his campaigns the German People were behind him and his ideas.

But they lost, Germany was defeated and to the victor go the spoils, the German army looted, burnt pillaged its way across many lands, and in these lands the civilians paid the price, what the Russian army did when it was fighting its way across Germany and other European countries was bought by the crimes commited against the Russian people, they were encouraged to punish the Germans people. As history show this was the norm for the victors in time of conflict.

Also by pointing out one or two cases purporting to show how clean and good the Germans were at punishing the mis-doers in their military, history shows the real truth of what the nazi were out to do and no amount of argument from your point of view can change the facts.

Kevin in Deva

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on September 16, 2006 11:57 am

thank you for the reasonable reply Victor. You do bring up many valid points about the motivations of some of Germany's allies. But the foreign volunteers of their nations in the Waffen-SS had more motivation. Hitler surely did not have the well ebing of Germany and Europe in mind when he fought the USSR. After all in 1945, when Germany was being defeated, he himself stated that he the German people deserved nothing less. Yet German propaganda portrayed the fight in a sense that many thought it was a noble cause. For example, while a French or Dutch or Belgian volunteer of the Waffen-SS wouldn't be fighting for a Nazi EU, most of them fought for their countries to be free from communism, which they were afriad would take over Europe after it defeaated Germany.

I agree, WWII was not only about idelogies, but more of a contest for control of Europe. However, if the Red Army achieved a total victory over the Wehrmacht, the results wouldn't be too diserable..

Best Regards,

K

With all due respect towards the initial discussion, I do have a question towards you Helmut. Where are the 10 rules on the Soldbuch ? I have some 20 Soldbucher in my collection, mostly Heer and SS, and in none of them there are those 10 rules. There are only 5, and here is the proof. Also, i am not prolific in German, I kindly ask a German speaking member to translate those 5.

Thanks, Al

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/422/page24cc1.jpg

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/968/coverfrontrb9.jpg



PS - sorry for the offtopic, I just want to get this 10 rules issue out of my head.

This post has been edited by Alexei2102 on September 16, 2006 12:12 pm

Hello Von Moltke,

I think the comments about 'Bolshevism' you make are just wrong, at least according to the books I have read. You need to read in more detail about the Finnish War, what happened in Spain etc. and more modern and recent books.

People are mentioning a lot the Baltic Nations and Bessarabia, but, Germany took many territories at the same time, (like giving Transylvania back to Hungary, taking parts of the Baltic countries in alliance with Russia. etc.) and, diplomatically was the main intiator of the whole thing.

Spain is far more complicated than just an attempt at 'Bolshevik take over', the 'reds' of various types did commit many crimes, (there is a book called 'The Red Domination of Spain' which was published in the 1950s by the Spanish government that you would probably like to read), but, the Nationalists also commited even more crimes and for even longer. Now in Spain people speak about this and write about it, but they could not for years.

According to one recent book, (Gabriel Gorodetsky, Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, Yale University Press, 1999) which is a detailed discussion of Soviet Foreign Policy and the situation leading up to WW2, the ideas of Suvorov et al. are 'preposterous and unsubstantiated' and generally just based on myths without any archival or other evidence. He also points out that Suvorov used to work in Russian Intelligence and so was an expert in misinformation, and his ideas were adopted due to a lack of any material of substance availabe at the time. This author does use vast amounts of Russian and German archival material, including everything from Stalin's personal archive that is relevant and that was not available in the 80s. Not having seen Suvorovs book, I don't know how it compares with Grand Delusion but, this book is well documented and footnoted, 400 pages long and dealing only with 1939-41, and seems credible and realistic.

Stalin, by the 1920s had repudiated Lenin's ideas about World Communism, and did so repeatedly throught the late 20s and 30s in speech after speech.

It also ties in with what has been revealed about the Fuhrer in recent biographies, when the Russians planning an attack was not something Hitler or German intelligence were aware of, and it was not something that had any weight in his decisions about Barbarossa. Also, the Russian army would not have been capable of invading Europe with success. See the judgements of the Russian military leaders themselves on the Red Army in 1941, the Germans and the historian John Erickson in his book 'The Road to Stalingrad.'

I think you have just swallowed Nazi propaganda from the later stages of the war about the crusade against Bolshevism, the terms you use are certainly similar.

The whole weight of your argument also rests on the fact that the German's were fighting a defensive war against 'Bolshevism' when a lot of evidence points to the fact that they were fighting a war of aggrandizement and unprovoked aggression against pretty much every other nation. This is why they gained a place in infamy really, because it was all unneccessary and counter productive. I would seriously dispute that the Wehrmacht, or indeed the Red Army fought a 'clean war' on the Eastern Front, Bartov's book does provide enough evidence to refute that idea, if you don't believe that, the casualty statistics alone would suggest as much.

Also, Hitler's ideas about the British Empire are what influenced the Nazis, not the actual practice of European colonialism. If anything, the Nazis were a total regression, because the atrocties the British commited in India go about as far as the 1850s, and then there are a lot less, and never anything like the Nazi plans of murdering 30 million slavs etc. If the Nazis had used British methods, they would have just let the Russians run themselves in return for favourable trade terms. But, the British Empire had its origins in the early part of the 19th Century, and by 1940s was on the way out anyway. Could you imagine the Nazis raising a big Russian Army? Or starting to give the Russians democratic institutions, or causing a revival of Russian culture and religion as happened in India under the British?

The Nazis were just interested in the colonial theories of the most extreme racists in Britain and France, not how it was really run.

Well, I have not said that Germans were the only victims.

you claim

The NSDAP never reached 50 per cent of the vote before Reich Preisdent Hindenburg invited Adolf Hitler to be Chancellor. The majority of the German people were not enthusiastic about the war, as they were about WWI in 1914. There were not cheering crowds in Berlin. Most Germans just wanted it to be over. Check out William Shirer's memoir of his experiences in Berlin, I seem to remember there is a more detailed description of this. And not to mention, most German soldiers of WWII before 1933 were too young to vote for the NSDAP and were little kids back then. What could they do? They fought for their country like any responsible young man of the age would do. Period.

I think you are talking of the Einsatzgruppe and the Gestapo here? There are just too many desciptions of the many good relations of the Wehrmacht and the civilian population in memoirs of former German officers and soldiers. I can post some if you want. And the Russian army taking revenge? Russian people? Sorry. The state of Russia did not exist back then. It was named the 'Soviet Union'. Crimes commited? What about Stalin rounding up whole peoples during the war for 'collarbation' and sending them off to the Gulag? Even "Heroes of the Soviet Union' holders who fought in Stalingrad were deported only because of their ethnicity. I can't see the East Prussian peasent being an Einsatzgruppe murderer. Yes, you are right, the Soviet troops were encouraged to rape and plunder, at the behest of Ihrenberg. Not mentioning the fact that many front line Soviet units behaved kindly to the civilian population but rear supply, etc troops commited most of the rapes. So the 'revenge' statement is disproved again. And no, revenge is not always the norm. For example, Germany did not go into a genocide of the French after the French campaign and the US Army did not commit a lot of war crimes when they entered Germany.

1 or 2 cases? Actually, they were majot examples. Add on, what about Feldmarschall Rommel ignoring Hitler's order to execute Jewish prisoners of war in the Afrika campaign?

There are many cases of humane actions of the Wehrmacht, whicch I can dig out for you if you want.

For example:

The Abwehr under Admiral Canaris rescuing a famous rabbi from Warsaw in 1939, via a half Jewish highly deocrated Wehrmacht officer.

In 1942, several U Boats rescued many civilian survivros of the 'Laconia' or something like that.

The German evacuation of anti Soviet populations during Herresgruppe Sud's retreat from the Caucasus in 1942/1943 to save them from Soviet revenge.

The Hauptmann that helped the Polish Jew in one of the few unbiased movies about the holocaust, "The Pianist'.

Feldmarschall Kesserling and General von Senger who delivered food to the civilian population in Italian cities.

The Kriegsmarine evacuation of refugees in 1945, in Operation 'Hannibal'.

There must be a clear line drawn between honourable men like Rommel, Guderian, Rundstedt, Doenitz and most of the men of the Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS, who were a world apart from mass murderes like Hitler and Himmler.

Best Regards,

K

Von Moltke,

There are examples when German's helped the jews, and there were many Germans who were not Nazis, and even in one way or another opposed to the Nazis in the Wehrmacht, but while it is appropriate to sympathise with people who were caught up in this without wanting to be, Hitler was very popular with the Germans until he started to loose, and also all of his criminal plans for invasions were supported by many members of the German Armed Forces who should have known better.

If you want to see how the ordinary East Prussian peasant became a member of an einsatzgruppe, read the book 'Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution' by Christopher Browning, which is an attempt at giving an account of this.

It is bad to take personal examples, two members of my family were killed during the second war fighting the Germans, and one lost his legs, but this won't be uncommon.

If anything, those Germans who fought for such an evil and disreputable cause are a tragic example of how things can go wrong for people, and to be pitied, but not held up as a political example for today, or in anyway to whitewash the reputation of organisations that turned their back on morality.

Hi Al,

about the Soldbuch 10 rules, I aquired that piece of information on www.militariacollecting.com, a militaria forum.

Hi saudadesdefrancesinhas,

You do make valid points about some communist history being found in more detail and more objectively recently through opening of the Soviet archives, but still, it cannot be denied that the Soviet Union was an aggressive power, judging by the activities of the Comintern. Who else would have Mao fighting in China, a state of terror and repression in it's own homeland, and communist parties in pretty much most of the world which contsnatly agitates and wants to overthrow governments? And about Spain. Yes, the Nationalists commited many crimes. But judging by the Red terror, what would have happened if they won and turned Spain Red? Despite all the hogwash about the "international brigades", it is time for the sacrifices of the Nationalist soldiers who fought for their Christian faith and their country to be free of communism to be acknowledged.

This would be true in 1941, right after the fiasco of the Red Army's invasion of Finland. Stalin tried to re-organise the Red Army as quickly as possible. However in 1942 or 1943 the Red Army would surely be strong enough. What of their huge numbers of men, tanks, guns, and aircraft?

Some terms used nowadays are still Allied and Bolshevik propaganda 100 %... hardly objective.

But, it was surely a defensive war against Bolshevism which had much to do with the fate of Europe after 1943 when the Red Army was on the offensive right? If the Wehrmacht totally collapsed then who would plug the gap and stop the Red Army? And about infamy, judging by the same token why dosen't the Soviet Union have infamy for taking over the Baltic States, Bessarabia and invading Finland? Or why idn't Britain infamous for having an Empire? But you are right, on the Eastern front, it was hard and brtual on both sides... but the statement would be true on the Western front, though.

You do make valid points about Hitler and the British Empire. Most likely Hitler was more intrested in the conquest side of British colonialsm. But about numbers, I have already made the exception with my comment of an "enlarged version". But towards the end of the war, in 1943 and 1944 - yes, the Nazis set up a Russian liberation committe in Prauge, run by General Vlasov, and the Russian army of liberation, on which on the first day of it's founding 60000 volunteers joined for. Not mentioning, most of the Russian and Ukranian population welcomed the Germans as liberators in the beggining until the "Reichcommissars" came. Despite that fact, almost 1 million of the 2 million foreign volunteers of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS were Slavic or Eastern Europeans. And culture? Eventually, even Orthodox priests were allowed to preach to the Ukranian 14. Waffen Grenadier Division der SS. They were true patrioits. The US government recognized this after the war, by not stating they were criminals and I am grateful to them for it. However of course, I know that the Nazis did this out of circumstance and situation, as they were despierate for manpower in 1944 and 1945.

Regards,

K

hi saudadesdefrancesinhas,

thanks for remianing civil in this debate.

You said

Well, naturally Hitler would be popular among Germans because he managed to throw off the shackles of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, and made Germany rich and powerful again. Most Germans would support Hitler out of his foreign policies. I highly doubt that most Germans would vote for him if he said he wanted to kill Jews in concentration camps. He had a very effective propaganda sysmtem to keep check of such things. For example, a German veteran I know, said that his father was once arrested for making deragtory remarcks about Hitler, and spent some time in a KZ, yet when he was released, he still believed the propaganda of the KZs being rehabiliation centres. And didn't many German officers want their land back after they were taken by the Poles in 1919? And after all, when Hitler had his first confrence with Reichswehr generals in 1933 shortly after taking power, he made a speech about conquering Lebensraum, and the generals didn't care very much, and only supported his wants for a larger army. After all, didn't General Ludwig Beck, chief of staff, oppose Hitler's plans for Czechoslovakia?

The Einsatzgruppe was not that big. How is the Red Army raping a woman in Nemmesdorf or pretty much anywhere else in Eastern Germany revenge? And it can hardly be revenge when the Red Army raped many women in Poland, and their own women as well after they were released from forced labour in Germany.

I have nothing against soldiers in the Red Army or Allied armies, just as I have nothing against German soldiers or Japanese soldiers or whatever, as long as they didn't commit war crimes. My grandfather's brother was executed by the Japanese in 1942. Yet my grandfather and I don't hold any grudges against Japan. After all, my grandfather was saved by a Japanese soldier and my grandfather still speaks highly of him. No feeling of revenge there. This should apply to the European theatre of WWII as well. For heaven's sake, it was 60 years ago. Why can't people just forgive and forget?

German soldiers defending their country from the Red Army's advance in order to gain time for the Western Allies to advance, during 1945, isn't an evil cause. Kriegsmarine sailors rescuing refugees from surroudned areas isn't an evil cause. And turning back on morality? The Wehrmacht had chaplains. Kurt Meyer told the lads of 12. SS Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend' to ignore thr hogwash pagain crap of Himmler and keep to Christian ways. Willi Bittrich let his troops attend mass, despite the fact that the Waffne-SS was supposed to be 'Gottglaubig" before the war. And about examples. Well, it cannot be denied that men like Rommel, Guderian, Erich Hartmann, Erich Topp and Michael Wittmann were magnificent and strong men, even if the regime they fought under was evil. More men like these and we would not be afraid of so called "terrorists" today.

Regards,

K

Such generalizations are unproductive and tend to contradict what you write several lines below. You can't possibly say that the entire Red Army raped. There were over 10 million soldiers by 1945. Some soldiers did, but this in no way means that these can be extended over the entire Army. The same can be done in the case of the Axis troops that rounded up civilians under the pretext of collaboration with the enemy and shot them and make a rule out of it. Crimes were comitted by individuals.