Nazi Morality

Crete was a country in '41?
Estonia and Lithuania were annexed by the USSR in '40 last time i checked.

and France declared war to Germany. it's like calling the class of '70 invaders.

not to talk about the allies not giving a damn about Norwegian neutrality, not in WW1 and not in WW2 either, the germans preempting an invasion of norway by a few hours.

and Horthy & Antonescu a puppet leader? well i'm seriously doubting you don't know that better.

actually not, but accuse them what they were guilty of and not everything else (some of which was happily done by the allies too), because this is what turns out to be double standards.

without the generous allied help , germany was winning the attrition war in east, but it's some sort of swapping the red devil with a brown one. that policy didn't change later. who said about saddam "he's a SOB but he is our SOB"? remeber, in the 30ies nobody did squat about Adolf?

actually i find it a bit awkward discussing the moral values "promoted" (should be read "imposed") by a dictatorship, no matter what colour.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on October 18, 2006 09:18 am

Yes Crete was a country, the population are Cretians or did you think they were Greek??

Forgot to mention Albania as well, populated by Albanians.

Excuse me but I dont understand the reference: "and France declared war to Germany. it's like calling the call of '70 invaders."

"not to talk about the allies not giving a damn about Norwegian neutrality, not in WW1 and not in WW2 either, the germans preempting an invasion of norway by a few hours."

So you claim the Allies were going to invade Norway BEFORE the Germans, I think you will find the British & French were invited by the King of Norway to send an expeditionary force, where as the nazis invaded.
I also dont remember Norway being involved in WW1, Finland was though.

"and Horthy & Antonescu a puppet leader? well i'm seriously doubting you don't know that better."

Again Horthy and Antonescu knew they could not oppose Germany, better to aligne themselves with him (PUPPETS). Hitler the Grand Master pulling the strings.

"without the generous allied help , germany was winning the attrition war in east, but it's some sort of swapping the red devil with a brown one. that policy didn't change later. who said about saddam "he's a SOB but he is our SOB"? remeber, in the 30ies nobody did squat about Adolf?

In the 1930s Adolf was considered to be something of a political joke, he created the excuse to invade Poland, to justify his rescue of the Danzig Germans, the same with the excuse to cross into Austria, and then Czechaslovakia. (Save the ethnic German Minorities).

What does " without generous allied help, germany was winning the war in the middle east," mean? again are you implying the allies helped hitler??

Suparatu

The III Reich never informed its people they were killing off the sick the mentaly & physically deficient by lethal injections, many families received Death Certificates stating family members died of Natural Causes, Heart attack etc.

Antonescu (who I dont remember being democratically elected to power) had not the military power to stand up against Hitler thats why he joined with him and became an ally. (Puppet) and if that offends any iron guard wannabies tough.

The Japanese population suffered the consequences of allowing their lives to be dictated by a feudal Military Junta and undying belief in a god emperor.

Again your anti-American sentiments have no reality in this discussion, with regards "maybe we should start resiting the americans today and kick them out, right? what do you think it would happpen? we would be on bush's shitlist and he might even start bombing us for freedom and democracy..."
The Romanian government agreed to the US having troops stationed on its soil, you were not "invaded"and how are "WE" gonna kick them out?? a lot of people have no problem them being here. Were you as quick to kick out the Russian and Communists Regime

Of course Bush threatens to bomb all his allies to make them do as he says, the British, the Germans, the Spanish, etc...etc... shows how paranoid you are about the USA.



why then do you use your mindset of today to judge the nazi actions?

smells like double standard.

it is silly to say the nazis were evil because they killed people, which is totally unlike what the americans did, who killed germans or japanese, that were not people, they were evil incarnate, bless the lord oh hallejujah..

come on...

with regards my statement, I was taught that what the Nazis did was EVIL, the fact that German and Japanese civilians died because of the EVIL they supported, is part of the price that has to be paid, when EVIL is opposed. Fact of life,
But you can deny documented history if you like or in your world there are no moral standards or we are all equal?
Show me the way to this paradise, bless the lord, oh hallejujah. Shalom .Allah Ackbar etc...etc...

Kevin in Deva.

you must be Pat Robertson. i have heard this line so ofter lately.."americans must oppose evil". i agree. start with the one back home fist, for there is plenty.

neither was george bush. he stole florida.

That phrase just turned on my "raised eyebrow of gross oversimplification" .

so according to you there was no political pressure in "inviting" the american troops on our soil, letting them loose to kill people when they chose to get drunk and drive, withour criminal prosecution?

dude, seriosly... a 12 year old knows better...
you know that a small coutry like Romania is as sovereign in this world as a pretty boy in jail. next you will say that it was the will of the people that rose up to claim laws that deny the freedom of speech - in romania you can go to jail or pay a fine if you wear a swastika or say heil hitler or whatever.

for me it is silly how a "free and democratic" ruling like we are supposed to have here choses ti imitate the characteristics of a regime like the nezi one, which embraced censorship.

have you checked your "Coutry that love US" list lately...i think that a couple you mentioned already are missing...

Hi Imperialist,

1) I cannot find any reference to "Weimar" in your posts on this thread. What you wrote was: "The Nazi regime was squarely against the moral corruption of western democracies".

2) No. The names you mentioned WERE singled out because they were Jewish, even though you stated yourself that they were only among the proponents of these ideas.

3) What made me mad was that you were deliberately selective in your "truth". Even though you admitted that they were not alone, you not only chose to name just Jews, but you then proceeded to highlight the fact that they were Jews.

Claiming "I told the truth" is not a defence if you are selective in that truth. If you had seen a mugging by a mixed group of white and black youths and only told the police about the black OR white youths taking part, this would be considered a deliberate perversion of the course of justice. In this case you are engaged in the perversion of the truth.

Furthermore, just because something is the truth does not mean that one is morally justified in expressing it. Do you cross the street to tell deformed people that they are deformed?

4) Oh yes, it very much is your fault if you make generalisations reflecting only on Jews without checking you facts properly or attempting to give a full and balanced presentation of them.

5) Really? Most books burnt by the Nazis were from the Hirschfeld Institute? Evidence please.

Why on earth would anyone want to hide what books were burned by the Nazis? They themselves published lists of proscribed volumes. Heck, they gassed six million people to death. How is hiding what books they burnt going to change historical perceptions?

Oh, but I do want things to be told. However, I apparently differ from you in wanting them to be the full facts, not selective ones that seem to be informed by personal prejudice.

The purpose of my "interrogatory"? To find out why on earth you put up such a mixture of the patently inaccurate and the down right prejudiced. You still haven't answered that.

We are all obliged to justify, withdraw or modify anything we put up here in public when challenged. Not just you and not just on this subject.

Yes, many threads deviate. However, this is not a soap box for political, personal or racial prejudice. It is a military history forum.

Cheers,

Sid.

ON TOPIC With regard Nazi Morality, some what simplistic but gets to the point:

The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told - or paid the price. The Nazi Police were controlled by Heinrich Himmler and his feared secret police - the Gestapo - did as it pleased in Nazi Germany. Children’s loyalty could be developed with a policy of indoctrination via education and the Hitler Youth movement. Time and planning spent in these areas would bring a suitable reward for Hitler.

Adults were a different proposition. Some adults clearly supported Hitler - as the March 1933 election showed. But the same election clearly showed that a substantial number of Germans did not support Hitler and the Nazis. These people were likely to be a constant thorn for Hitler unless they were dealt with. For these people, the Nazis developed a policy of intimidation. Fear became a by-word for those who did not support Hitler. The wrong comment overheard by a Nazi official could have very serious consequences.

Hitler’s police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm, could come to you. If you had doubts about the way the country was going, you kept them to yourself - or paid the price. As nearly 17 million people had not voted for either the Nazis or the Nationalist in March 1933, a large and visible police force was required to keep this sizeable group under observation and control.

In Nazi Germany the police were allowed to arrest people on suspicion that they were about to do wrong. This gave the police huge powers. All local police units had to draw up a list of people in their locality who might be suspected of being "Enemies of the State". This list was given to the Gestapo - the Secret Police. The Gestapo had the power to do as it liked. Its leader - Reinhard Heydrich - was one of the most feared man in Nazi Germany. His immediate chief was Heinrich Himmler. Both men ran their respective branches with ruthless efficiency.

Those arrested by either the police or the Gestapo had less than three minutes to pack clothing and say their goodbyes. Once arrested, they were sent to the nearest police cell. Those in custody were told to sign Form D-11; this was an "Order For Protective Custody". By signing this, you agreed to go to prison. Those who did not sign it were beaten until they did or officers simply forged their signature. Once a D-11 was signed, you were sent to a concentration camp. How long you stayed here depended on the authorities. The usual rule of thumb was whether it was felt that you had learned your lesson (even if there had not been one to learn) and would behave in an acceptable manner once outside of prison.

The concentration camps were deliberately barbaric. Before 1939, deaths in them occurred but they were not common. The idea was that anybody who had been in one, once released, would ‘advertise’ the fact that they were not places where people wanted to go. This was another way of ensuring that people kept their ideas to themselves.

The concentration camps were run by men who could disguise their violent nature simply because they wore a uniform. The flogging of inmates was common -25 strokes was common practice - and the amenities were very basic and sparse. At Buchenwald, 480 men had one water tap between them which could only be used for 15 minutes on getting up. Any abuse of this rule would lead to 25 lashes. Any arrested Jew would get 60 lashes - a personal order from Hitler. Soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes etc were unheard of in camps such as Buchenwald (which held 8000 prisoners) and Dachau. Food and drink were minimal and the Jews had half the rations of other prisoners

Who would get arrested?

The list was intentionally expansive. Anybody considered to be a political threat was arrested;

those who made jokes about the Nazi Party were also arrested (jokes about Hitler were punished with death); the "work shy" were also arrested (this fitted in exactly with Hitler’s plan to reduce unemployment as an unemployed person would be offered work at a Labour Exchange and if they refused it as too menial for them, they would be arrested as work shy.

As no-one in concentration camps counted as unemployed, the figures for unemployment had to come down; "Bibelforscher’s" were also arrested (these were people who would only seek guidance from the Bible and rejected all Nazi ideas and they also refused to do military service); homosexuals were also arrested and the SS used this as a common tactic to discredit someone, habitual criminals were also arrested.

In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves. This non-uniformed branch of the SS became justifiably feared just as the visible presence of the black uniformed SS men did. Himmler's view on the SS was simple. In 1943 he said:

"We have always selected the highest and abandoned the lowest. As long as we maintain this principle, the Order (the SS) will remain healthy. After the war, we shall really build up our Order......it will provide Germany with an elite. This elite will provide leaders to industry, agriculture and politics and the activities of the mind."

Taken from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm

but no doubt somebody will claim its all anti-german propaganda.

NAZI RAUS

Kevin in Deva.

as far i know, Crete belonged to Greece since 1913. to my understanding, it was a province of Greece at best.

i had a typo. it's supposed to read "class of '70", meaning 1870.

i was speaking of the allied intention to land in norway and move to sweden.

blockade runners sunk by the RN in norwegian waters. i said something about not giving a damn about norwegian neutrality, bit in ww1 or in ww2. just as it is the case of germany concerning norway, belgium, netherlands and denmark.

puppet government.

care to back the "joke" up with something? the british press wasn't negative about him in the 30ies.
and the british gov. signed a naval treaty with someone they saw as a joke? which doesn't answer why nobody cared to do something about him while he was undoable (until '38 or so).

no. i'm implying that without L&L the USSR would not have won in the east.

QUOTE
with regards my statement, I was taught that what the Nazis did was EVIL, the fact that German and Japanese civilians died because of the EVIL they supported, is part of the price that has to be paid, when EVIL is opposed.

you must be Pat Robertson. i have heard this line so ofter lately.."americans must oppose evil". i agree. start with the one back home fist, for there is plenty.

Never heard of Pat Robertson but I know Good from Bad, and NAZI or NEO-NAZI is BAD in my opinion.

QUOTE
Antonescu (who I dont remember being democratically elected to power)


neither was george bush. he stole florida.

Again you make allagations where is your proof??


QUOTE
The Romanian government agreed to the US having troops stationed on its soil

That phrase just turned on my "raised eyebrow of gross oversimplification" .

so according to you there was no political pressure in "inviting" the american troops on our soil,

Please provide the proof of political pressure if you have any.



"letting them loose to kill people when they chose to get drunk and drive, without criminal prosecution?

The driver of the car involved in a traffic accident was stationed at the US Embassy and was not part of a US "invasion force", tragic as it was it was not a planned attack on Romanian citizens.
The romanians manage to kill enough of their own people through similar or worse traffic accidents or dont you read the news?? and Romanian military personel at any Embassy in the World enjoy diplomatc protection, its not just given to the americans.

dude, seriosly... a 12 year old knows better...

So you are a 12 year old ? for somebody so anti-usa you sure like to copy their slang.

you know that a small coutry like Romania is as sovereign in this world as a pretty boy in jail.

I have not had your pretty boy. sexual experiences to draw on all countries take sides, if you have a problem with the sides chosen by Romania, try getting involved in a political party instead of moaning about it. (its the democratic way, comrade )

next you will say that it was the will of the people that rose up to claim laws that deny the freedom of speech - in romania you can go to jail or pay a fine if you wear a swastika or say heil hitler or whatever.

Damn right, great law, has nothing to do with free speech, and is there to stop the spouting of racial hatred, the same law is in Germany, France, Belgium, etc. must really dissapoint the neo-nazi Iron Guard, ss wannabe wet dreamers.
The people of Romania didnt rise up to become Nazis or is that your idea of true democracy, no doubt with yourself having a good position in the "Party" to tell the rest of us what to do??

for me it is silly how a "free and democratic" ruling like we are supposed to have here choses ti imitate the characteristics of a regime like the nezi one, which embraced censorship.

You can make a statement, to a news paper, to the tv, nobody is dragging Romanians off to any camps for saying anything, or is that another of your conspiricy theorioes, is there a cell in Guantanimo with Suparatu on the door.

NAZI RAUS

Kevin in Deva.

QUOTE
Yes Crete was a country, the population are Cretians or did you think they were Greek??

as far i know, Crete belonged to Greece since 1913. to my understanding, it was a province of Greece at best.

Oh! I understand, something like Transylvania being a province of Hungary

QUOTE

Excuse me but I dont understand the reference: "and France declared war to Germany. it's like calling the call of '70 invaders."

i had a typo. it's supposed to read "class of '70", meaning 1870.

In 1870-71 the Prussian beat France, due to the ineptitude of the French Military command, but agreed to call off the occupation to go home and sort out the workers uprising (pre-communist ones), so are you saying the Prusians were right to invade France, are you claiming its Germanys god given right to accupy other countries.??

QUOTE

So you claim the Allies were going to invade Norway BEFORE the Germans, I think you will find the British & French were invited by the King of Norway to send an expeditionary force, where as the nazis invaded.


i was speaking of the allied intention to land in norway and move to sweden.

I will hold my comment on this until you state where your information comes from

QUOTE

I also dont remember Norway being involved in WW1

blockade runners sunk by the RN in norwegian waters. i said something about not giving a damn about norwegian neutrality, bit in ww1 or in ww2. just as it is the case of germany concerning norway, belgium, netherlands and denmark.

by refering to "Blocade Runners" then these was German ships illegaly in Norwegien territorial waters, again what was the area of Norweigean territorial waters and the location od the attacks and sinkings? as this is unknown to me.

QUOTE

Again Horthy and Antonescu knew they could not oppose Germany, better to aligne themselves with him (PUPPETS). Hitler the Grand Master pulling the strings.


puppet government.

nice link, but again in my opinion the people I mentioned were PUPPETS they being the head of the PUPPET GOVERNMENTS of their PUPPET STATES.
and all were afraid of hitler, the PUPPET MASTER.

QUOTE

In the 1930s Adolf was considered to be something of a political joke, he created the excuse to invade Poland, to justify his rescue of the Danzig Germans, the same with the excuse to cross into Austria, and then Czechaslovakia. (Save the ethnic German Minorities).

care to back the "joke" up with something? the british press wasn't negative about him in the 30ies.
and the british gov. signed a naval treaty with someone they saw as a joke? which doesn't answer why nobody cared to do something about him while he was undoable (until '38 or so).

Its general knowedge that nobody took Hitler seriously in the early 30s, again what year was the implied naval treaty signed?? seeing as the germans were still under the Terms of the Treaty of Versiallies?? (probably spelt that wrong )

QUOTE

What does " without generous allied help, germany was winning the war in the middle east," mean? again are you implying the allies helped hitler??

no. i'm implying that without L&L the USSR would not have won in the east.

Lend Lease was a minor help towards the Russians, They would have ground the Germans down sooner or later, more manpower, the germans just couldn't replace their human losses as quickly as the russians.

Rule 1: Never fight a war on two fronts. (Particularly in the middle of a Russian Winter).

Rule 2: Never attempt to invade unless you have the logistics to win.

Rule 3:Ex-Corporals dont always make the best tacticians.

Rule 4: Surprise Military stratagies get old quick and cannot be used indefinately.

Rule 5: Dont go to war using untried and un (field) tested new military eguipment.

Kevin in Deva

That's your problem, but I'll help you out:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=54971

No. It so happens that the founder of the Institute and the guys that performed the first sex change operation in the world were jewish. The fact that I mentioned this drives you nuts and I dont see why.

Oh, they were not the only proponents of gay rights, that I clearly stated. But they were the only guys to do the first sex change operation in the world and mr. H was the founder of the Institute. Now what exactly do you expect? Me to list all the proponents of gay rights in Weimar? Sorry, that's absurd. Indeed I picked the most prominent and it happend they were jews. Tough luck, but it's not my fault.

Oh, so I wasnt morally justified in saying they are jewish, a fact that is openly stated in their biographies? You are absurd. Your comparison is also out of place.

I made no generalisation concerning the jews.

Not the first time some dude is offended by the truth and considers truth to be inaccurate or prejudiced.

p.s. I think I've answered all your "demands". If my answers werent satisfactory for you is entirely your problem. Now could you move on to more on-topic issues? I said all I had to say 11 days ago, you said all you had to say yesterday and today. Could we move on? Thank you.

Well, judging by your statements, it wouldnt be wrong saying that the Romanian government is America's ally (PUPPET).

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=54225

I bet the japanese were told they fight evil too. So many people were killed in the name of fighting evil and yet evil doesnt have a scratch. In fact, he probably enjoys when people "fight evil".

take care

so in your view transsylvania was an indepent country? who was the head of the government? same for crete, estonia etc?

i implied, and it wasn't hard at all to understand, that, by the "invader criteria" you'd have to strike france from your list of "victims".

from the op of my head "Altmark incident" (for ww2)

neither the Antonescu nor the Horthy came to power in Romania resp. Hungary imposed by the Nazis. Horthy was quite popular in Hungary since the 20ies.

hitler reintroduced conscription in march '35 which boosted the army to 36 divisions.
the anglo-german naval treaty was signed in june '35.
of course hitler wasn't taken all too serios in '31 and '32 until he won the election.

L&L provided the russians with motor vehicles and helped them obtain o motorisation which they wouldn't be able to archive without. also most of the high-octane fuel for aircraft came from the US, among others.
this enabled the russians to build about 105.000 tanks and assault guns to additional about 15000 they had in '39.
according to Krivosheev, the red army lost 83500 tanks and 13000 assault guns during ww2, as total write-offs.
according to "Kraftfahrzeuge und Panzer der Reichswehr, Wehrmacht und Bundeswehr" the germans wrote off about 28500 tanks and assault guns as total losses on all fronts.

even taking the german complete losses on all fronts (including those in '45 which wouldn't have happened to that degree), the wehrmacht lost about 10.500.000 men including kriegsmarine (approximation). according to krivosheev the red army lost about 29.500.000.

unless the soviets wouldn't manage, without any aid to pull of a few operations with late'44-45 style losses for the german army, it is quite clear (eventhough the figures are approximations) that they'd run out of men and equipment sooner than the germans.

maybe some should split some of this off this thead

QUOTE ("NCR")

Again Horthy and Antonescu knew they could not oppose Germany, better to aligne themselves with him (PUPPETS). Hitler the Grand Master pulling the strings.

Antonescu (who I dont remember being democratically elected to power) had not the military power to stand up against Hitler thats why he joined with him and became an ally. (Puppet) and if that offends any iron guard wannabies tough.

The Romanian government agreed to the US having troops stationed on its soil, you were not "invaded"

Well, judging by your statements, it wouldnt be wrong saying that the Romanian government is America's ally (PUPPET).

Well the USA never stated it was going to invade you if you didnt get on their side like Hitler told Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Or have we evidence the US did threaten the sovereign right of Romania?


QUOTE ("NCR")

Were you as quick to kick out the Russian and Communists Regime

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=54225

Obviously you didnt remove the Soviets, as Romania had not the power (and will never rate up there with the so-called Super-Powers) and you wont remove the American s in Romania either.


QUOTE ("NCR")

with regards my statement, I was taught that what the Nazis did was EVIL, the fact that German and Japanese civilians died because of the EVIL they supported, is part of the price that has to be paid, when EVIL is opposed.

I bet the japanese were told they fight evil too. So many people were killed in the name of fighting evil and yet evil doesnt have a scratch. In fact, he probably enjoys when people "fight evil".

take care

point taken but it still dosent detract from the FACT that Germany and Japan were EVIL by definition of their aggressive acts and are responsible for their own peoples fate. If you start a war and loose, then you have to bear the resposibility. As your allies must bear the responsibility to their own people.

(And no, the U.S. dont qualify (yet).

The USA is here to stay, we cant change that fact and dreaming of bringing back the "Good Old Days" under adolf wont happen either.

Kevin in Deva.

When did Hitler threaten Romania with an invasion?

that is quite an arrogant statement since it implies us mortals do not get the difference.

just ask cheney.

are you serious? this is a ridiculous statement.

i agree with the fact that it was not premeditated. but morally it is unacceptable for a murderer to go free.

don't start with the insults. that won't work.

that is just disgusting. you are embarrasing yourself.

not in the US. "somebody " could not force the people there to uphold such a disgusting law. aparently in europe "somebody" managed to push the lobby far enough....

sure i can but the influence is where the money is. and about Guantanamo, well, that is just another example of how the "forces of good" are illegaly detaining civilians that are not even charged with anything, tortured them, some have even died there only because they are afghans in the wrong place at the wrong time.

what credibility do you think has a country that does monstruous things like Guantanamo? those are human beings and nobody under no circumstance has a right to do to them what "the land of the free/home of the brave" has done.

NAZI UND USA RAUS

This post has been edited by Suparatu on October 18, 2006 05:41 pm

This has gone too far. Topic closed for review.