Are the Germans really the bad guys.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Yes but what about the war crimes committed by the British? Like the slaughtering of the surrendered crew of U-27?

shooting crewmen from a sinking ship is a war crime yes, the British weren't saints by any stretch of the imagination

it doesn't in the slightest excuse the summary execution of tens of thousands of civilians in the occupied territories by the German Army, or the forced deportation of thousands more to work as slave labor in German industry, or the unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping, or the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as part of an attempt at cultural genocide against the Poles, or any of the other shit Germany did

so you can take your whataboutism and shove it
two wrongs don't make a right

Idk if you knew this or not, but every country that takes over land goes in and starts wrecking everything and rebuilding it in their image. Also, Germany called unrestricted submarine warfare, but their captains rarely actually engaged neutral shipping.

Also, You act as if they just merely sank everything they saw on a whim, when in actuality it was in response to the British's instructions for the convoys to wear neutral flags. SO Germany declared the waters around the UK and Ireland a war zone and that anything they saw there would be sunk. Also, lusitania had guns and ammunition bound for the UK on her swell, so her sinking was actually justified

"At the time she was sunk, she was carrying over 4 million rounds of small-arms ammunition (.303 caliber), almost 5,000 shrapnel shell casings (for a total of some 50 tons), and 3,240 brass percussion fuses, in addition to 1,266 passengers and a crew of 696."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Here is an idea. if you don't have the food for them, don't annex the land.

Germany's economy was regaining ground at the time, so at this point in 1941, they weren't starving anymore.

The repercussions of the Great Depression were fading by 1933. The Hunger Plan was to feed Germans during the war. During the war, every country was suffering from minor nourishment problems. The UK did not murder millions of people.

I am sorry but there is no other side of the story. Saying that murdering jews, protestants, gays, slavs, leftists, sick and disabled people was a great idea because there was a food shortage is simply wrong because when the plan was made (before the great depression), as well as when it started, German territories were more than sufficient to feed all people living in Germany.

The Nazis did not care about a logical reason to murder people. Jews were inferior so they die, Slavs are inferior, so they will be enslaved and worked to death, protestants not aligned to Hitler's church fan club were murdered, gays were inferior, so they were murdered, social-democrats were a political threat, so they were murdered. It goes on.

Hitler never wanted to save lives, but take them and eradicate whole cultures, ethnicities, religions and general ways of life.

Was it not the Great Depression that caused Hitler's rise to power? When being a working German man and know that you don't have the money to buy your family food. Hitler was put in office 1933 and starvation was fresh on the German people's mind. I'm not saying that Hitler's targets didn't have strategic interest, but I believe it was a kill 2 birds with 1 stone complex.

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Was it not the Great Depression that caused Hitler's rise to power? When being a working German man and know that you don't have the money to buy your family food. Hitler was put in office 1933 and starvation was fresh on the German people's mind. I'm not saying that Hitler's targets didn't have strategic interest, but I believe it was a kill 2 birds with 1 stone complex.

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Think of it like this. If you had recently starved and your family included would you return to that? No, you'd do everything with your moral code (and maybe beyond) to keep your family from that again. You seem to forget the effect of mental scars. They can be quite the motivator to never go through something again.

[Letwinist States]

Never said Hitler was elected all I said was that he was influential enough and powerful enough to place himself in power, and he did not get overthrown.

So you said, I am still waiting for something that justifies the murder of millions of people .

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Think of it like this. If you had recently starved and your family included would you return to that? No, you'd do everything with your moral code (and maybe beyond) to keep your family from that again. You seem to forget the effect of mental scars. They can be quite the motivator to never go through something again.

To the point of murdering millions?

No. You allready got out of starving. At this point, there was no fear of going back to starving.

Killing millions beacuse of "Mental scars" is no answer at all.

It was mindless killing.

[Proctopeo]

Imperial Germany was morally gray (as was every other participant in the war) and not really the "bad guys". The Nazis definitely were, of course.
I won't say anything about modern Germany to avoid a threadjack.

German citizens just have poor taste in political figures and parties at best is all.

The HRE, of course, was the best incarnation of Germany.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Was it not the Great Depression that caused Hitler's rise to power? When being a working German man and know that you don't have the money to buy your family food. Hitler was put in office 1933 and starvation was fresh on the German people's mind. I'm not saying that Hitler's targets didn't have strategic interest, but I believe it was a kill 2 birds with 1 stone complex.

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Not saying he was justified in his actions. But you have to admit he was economic genius and a good leader, just a terrible general. He single handedly made Germany great again, and also brought their downfall. After the war started in 1939, if he would of just shut his yap and let the generals do everything for him then he probably would of turned out fine in the end.

[UKCS]

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Not saying he was justified in his actions. But you have to admit he was economic genius and a good leader, just a terrible general. He single handedly made Germany great again, and also brought their downfall. After the war started in 1939, if he would of just shut his yap and let the generals do everything for him then he probably would of turned out fine in the end.

"Good leader" requires criteria; the holocaust does not fit that criteria.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Never said Hitler was elected all I said was that he was influential enough and powerful enough to place himself in power, and he did not get overthrown.

So you said, I am still waiting for something that justifies the murder of millions of people .

What I said was Hitler was immoral, but he had some logic to his evil. To his mass murdering which was unjust, it was a "necessary evil" to his eyes. I'm saying Hitler was cold an logical. He used race and stereotypes to hack away at a population, so food was easier to hand out, and annexation was for more farming land.

We often put Hitler on this pedestal of evil, but we rarely talk about the other sins people did in world war 2 like japanesse soldiers raping and murdering chinesse woman or Stalins great plan massacre.

Why is Hitler reserved as the most evil person when in reality evil is in all of us? Why must he be idolize as the pinnacle of evil when there are other equally as evil candidates? And Why must people assume certain people are evil? We don't consider Romans evil, but they exiled entire cities of other cultures or enslaved them. Why aren't they evil?

[Napoleonic Europa]

Germany's formation in the 19th century was the ultimate cause of WWI, but not the exact reason that triggered it. I wouldn't call them the 'bad guys' in WWI considering they were defending their ally from the opposing alliance that was supporting a nation harboring terrorists.

In WWII I would say the allies were responsible for the cause. The Treaty of Versailles was ridiculous and was the reason for war. The German people weren't the bad guys, but the Nazi Party most certainly was for obvious reasons.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Not saying he was justified in his actions. But you have to admit he was economic genius and a good leader, just a terrible general. He single handedly made Germany great again, and also brought their downfall. After the war started in 1939, if he would of just shut his yap and let the generals do everything for him then he probably would of turned out fine in the end.

"Good leader" requires criteria; the holocaust does not fit that criteria.

But he was leading the jews too, to their deaths, and he was quite good a that!

[Letwinist States]

Imperial Germany was morally gray (as was every other participant in the war) and not really the "bad guys". The Nazis definitely were, of course.
I won't say anything about modern Germany to avoid a threadjack.

German citizens just have poor taste in political figures and parties at best is all.

The HRE, of course, was the best incarnation of Germany.

Excuse me? I would ask you to elaborate on your view of modern German people, if possible without generalising like that. Or delete such an comment. It is uncalled for and does not really fit into this thread

[Proctopeo]

Imperial Germany was morally gray (as was every other participant in the war) and not really the "bad guys". The Nazis definitely were, of course.
I won't say anything about modern Germany to avoid a threadjack.

German citizens just have poor taste in political figures and parties at best is all.

The HRE, of course, was the best incarnation of Germany.

Excuse me? I would ask you to elaborate on your view of modern German people, if possible without generalising like that. Or delete such an comment. It is uncalled for and does not really fit into this thread

It's an opinion, don't take it too seriously. It wasn't an attack on them, anyway.

[Miasto Lodz]

Are the Germans really the bad guys.

Sure they are



(Source: http://libsysdigi.library.uiuc.edu/OCA/ ... 00merr.pdf )

Given that AMZON was a territory with quite low percentage of NSDAP supporters



I'm not even curious of the attitudes in different parts of Germany anymore.

[Blue Jews]

Both the British and French forced Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, knowing damn well that the harsh economic punishments would weaken Germany and severely stunt its growth. After the Great Depression struck, things only got worse for those poor Germans. And, as anyone would, they grew desperate for positive change as time went on. Hitler, being one of the greatest public speakers of all time, rallied, commanded, and controlled the German people.

What makes their actions in the 30's-40's inexcusable is how they barbarically blamed their misfortunes upon the Jews. They (the Germans) could not think for themselves. At that point, Hitler was the voice of the people; having rooted out the rational and sane, all that was left was a cruel and frightened people, either too scared or too apathetic to oppose Hitler.

Too summarize my tangent:

"You crossed the line first, sir. You hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Not saying he was justified in his actions. But you have to admit he was economic genius and a good leader, just a terrible general. He single handedly made Germany great again, and also brought their downfall. After the war started in 1939, if he would of just shut his yap and let the generals do everything for him then he probably would of turned out fine in the end.

He stumbled on to how to fix an eccomy.

Woo.

He was a racist, hated christianity, killed millions of innocence.

He wasn't a 'great leader' as you said, he brought its downfall.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, he did indeed restart the german economy

But on April 7, 1938 the german economy had already improved enough to feed families.

The start of the killing started in 1941.

There is no excuse, no justification, for the murdering of millions.

Not saying he was justified in his actions. But you have to admit he was economic genius

Strasser, for whom "Strasserism" is named, and is the closest you'll get to a "National Socialist Economic Policy", was killed in the 1938 purges. The Nazis spent money hand over fist to create the illusion of wealth in both the national purse and that dividends would come to the German people.

Oh, and everything else was basically stolen from Weimar economists.

and a good leader,

You literally admit in two sentence's time that he brought Germany down, completely.

just a terrible general.

Hitler - "just a terrible general".

This quote will come back to haunt you one day.

if he would of just shut his yap and let the generals do everything for him then he probably would of turned out fine in the end.

This is not how military affairs are run in any country, even literal military juntas.

[Salus Maior]

Yes but what about the war crimes committed by the British? Like the slaughtering of the surrendered crew of U-27?

shooting crewmen from a sinking ship is a war crime yes, the British weren't saints by any stretch of the imagination

it doesn't in the slightest excuse the summary execution of tens of thousands of civilians in the occupied territories by the German Army, or the forced deportation of thousands more to work as slave labor in German industry, or the unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping, or the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as part of an attempt at cultural genocide against the Poles, or any of the other shit Germany did

so you can take your whataboutism and shove it
two wrongs don't make a right

I don't think anyone who's not a Nazi would seriously sympathize with Nazi Germany in WWII.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Think of it like this. If you had recently starved and your family included would you return to that? No, you'd do everything with your moral code (and maybe beyond) to keep your family from that again. You seem to forget the effect of mental scars. They can be quite the motivator to never go through something again.

To the point of murdering millions?

No. You allready got out of starving. At this point, there was no fear of going back to starving.

Killing millions beacuse of "Mental scars" is no answer at all.

It was mindless killing.

Yes, but who do you blame? Who caused the Great starvation? You must ask yourself this, because it is the very reason why your family starved, thus there is a reason. Hitler made a reason by saying it was their fault. That's when the mass murdering comes in.

[Tanzoria]

What is this starvation nonsense? There was never any mass starvation or famine in Germany in the interwar years. That is not to say some did not die of malnutrition, but the same is true of any country in Europe during the depression. This whole argument is just Nazi apologia at its worst.

[Rusozak]

Are the Germans really the bad guys.

Sure they are



(Source: http://libsysdigi.library.uiuc.edu/OCA/ ... 00merr.pdf )

Given that AMZON was a territory with quite low percentage of NSDAP supporters



I'm not even curious of the attitudes in different parts of Germany anymore.

I would kind of expect Germans to continue to believe in Nazi-endorsed views immediately after ww2. Not like the Nazis surrendered and everyone was like "welp, guess they were wrong." But yeah, it's not like the German people were just as much victims as those of the countries they occupied. Quite a lot of Germans were on board with Hitler. They might have denied/not known about the death camps, but the mentality that ultimately lead to the holocaust was very much alive in the German public.

[Kainesia]

I do nazi any ozer vay to sie zem.

[Holy Tedalonia]

What is this starvation nonsense? There was never any mass starvation or famine in Germany in the interwar years. That is not to say some did not die of malnutrition, but the same is true of any country in Europe during the depression. This whole argument is just Nazi apologia at its worst.

Malnutrition and starvation is nearly interchangeable. Starvation is merely the most extreme form of malnutrition. It's not that you die, but you suffer hunger induced pain.

[Nancivania]

My take on this:

In the first world war, neither side was morally advantageous (Allies and Central Powers). Both used chemical weapons, both mowed down their enemies with machine guns, and both killed civilians caught in the crosshair. Germans fighting in WW1 were just as moral as the soldiers fighting for France, Russia, Britain, and America.

In the second world war however, the sides were a lot different. The Allies clearly had the moral high ground (at least the Western allies, I personally don't consider the USSR to be a true democratic ally). Nazi Germany was a horrible, genocidal, murderous, Aryan supremacist state that was responsible for the worst genocide in human history. Allied soldiers were fighting to stop this monstrous belief know as Nazism, whereas German troops (whether or not they knew it) were fighting in defense of Nazi Germany.

[Holy Tedalonia]

My take on this:

In the first world war, neither side was morally advantageous (Allies and Central Powers). Both used chemical weapons, both mowed down their enemies with machine guns, and both killed civilians caught in the crosshair. Germans fighting in WW1 were just as moral as the soldiers fighting for France, Russia, Britain, and America.

In the second world war however, the sides were a lot different. The Allies clearly had the moral high ground (at least the Western allies, I personally don't consider the USSR to be a true democratic ally). Nazi Germany was a horrible, genocidal, murderous, Aryan supremacist state that was responsible for the worst genocide in human history. Allied soldiers were fighting to stop this monstrous belief know as Nazism, whereas German troops (whether or not they knew it) were fighting in defense of Nazi Germany.

Everybody focuses in on Nazis to much. Massacres happened everywhere in that time. First the Spanish civil war which was the dark gruesome prequel to WW2, which for the most part was mainly run by Spanish (obviously), then theirs he japanesse who'd rape and murder chinesse woman, and there's ofcourse Stalin killing his own people for his reformation of Russia. There was a lot of death, so how come the Nazis get put on the "most evil bad guy totem" when there are people equally as bad? No one talks about the sinister evils that the Japanese did in history books (except if you count Pearl Harbor), and we don't talk about the sinister evils that Stalin did nearly as frequently as Hitler's. The whole Nazi evil badguys thing is just a pedestal- a representation of the evil within that era.