History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Biggest myth in history?
spongya
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODELGEEK
Visit this Community
Budapest, Hungary
Member Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:49 AM UTC

Quoted Text



I am pretty sure that alot of Axis prisioners seemed to not return to their homes till along time after the war (if they were one of the few who did). This doesn't include the whole communities that were banished on his orders. And I seem to recall the Russian soldiers were not overly polite to the locals when they occupied areas near/inside Germany.



What does it have to do with trying high ranking German officials for war crimes? The treatment of POWs, and thelooting/raping/murdering on occupied territories are completely different things.
While I by no means agree with what the Russians did (they did that in my country, too, and my grandfather spent 5 years in Siberia, so I know what I am talking about from first hand accounts), just take a look at how eagerly Mike approved of the slaughter of more than a million civilians as collective punishnent. Now imagine yourself in place of a Russian soldier who just witnessed the atrocities the Germans committed in the SU. 17 million!!! civilian, and 3 million soldier dead . That's twice as many as killed in the gas chambers total, and almost 4 times as many Jews murdered. They saw it first_hand; it's understandable thay they didn't behave themselves.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Member Since: January 18, 2006
entire network: 1,866 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:53 AM UTC
Stalin also agreed, and insisted, that the people of the occupied territories be given the right to chose their own form of government. His only condition was that the only choice available was his puppet government.

We could argue this forever, but each of us is the by product of the history we have read, studied and accept.
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Member Since: March 18, 2006
entire network: 2,362 Posts
KitMaker Network: 309 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 11:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

It should be noted that Hermann Goering called the Nuremberg trials "victor's justice", the victors trying the vanquished. And truth be told, he was right. The Soviets didn't want to bother with trials in the first place, but just summarily execute them all.



I'm sorry to contradict again, but the trials were held because Stalin INSISTED on "fair" trials. The Western Allies wanted the summary executions. (Look it up. Very strange twist of events.)
Did those bastards deserve to be hanged? With the exception of Jodl, sure thing. Many, many more would have deserved the same fate. (The trials would have been fair, to be honest, only if Allied "suspects", such as Bomber Harris had been put to trial -this would have been proven it wasn't a "victor's trial'. Also, as one American prosecutor remarked, these trials are only justified if the victors themselves don’t commit such acts in the future. Yeah, right. )



Funny, I remember reading exactly the opposite about the Nuremberg trials.

And yes, the USSR did put many of its own soldiers on trial, as well as summarily execute them. But these soldiers raped Soviet women as well as Axis ones.
spongya
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODELGEEK
Visit this Community
Budapest, Hungary
Member Since: February 01, 2005
entire network: 2,365 Posts
KitMaker Network: 474 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 02:17 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Stalin also agreed, and insisted, that the people of the occupied territories be given the right to chose their own form of government. His only condition was that the only choice available was his puppet government.

We could argue this forever, but each of us is the by product of the history we have read, studied and accept.



Randall, the argument you make in the last sentence is used only if one's too rigid to conduct any meaningful discussion. (Which requires an open mind and a willingness to inspect new information.) You and everybody else is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts. Most of the arguments I presented are either fact-based, or based on very convincing essays/books by historians. (Of course I was not there, so "facts" mean "generally accepted bits of information".) If it depended on the history I studied in school, it'd be a strange version indeed - I used to learn that the Russian Army "liberated" my homeland, and that the capitalist West is treacherously waiting to invade yet again, so they have to stay there "temporarily" to protect us.*

(The first part of the message has absolutely no connection to the fact that Stalin was pushing for a public trial of leading Nazi officials. We got into the Stalinist part of Europe, for example. What does it have to do with the trial of Goering?)

Try to get this book: very interesting, and very controversial to the "common knowledge" (Some interesting bits and pieces about how the post-war map of Europe was formed, too.)
http://www.amazon.com/Nuremberg-Last-Battle-David-Irving/dp/1872197167

http://books.google.com/books?id=03AbQHoPvgsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=nuernberg+trials+controversy&source=web&ots=KA34DxOkGk&sig=DRrinoPgS0pfCsBrK7NqythKOGI#PPR4,M1

Smith Bradley
Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg:
The Untold Story
New York 1976

Anyway, it doesn't go anywhere; let's just agree, that murdering civilians is bad. (Original discussion.)



*Seriously, you can admit it now. Did you want to invade?
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Member Since: January 18, 2006
entire network: 1,866 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 03:35 PM UTC
[/quote]

Randall, the argument you make in the last sentence is used only if one's too rigid to conduct any meaningful discussion. (Which requires an open mind and a willingness to inspect new information.) |) [/quote]

I will not waste time with this discussion, it is going in circles. You request an open mind of those that do not agree with you. Your intent seems to be to force others to be defensive. Pass.

uproar
Visit this Community
Nebraska, United States
Member Since: April 09, 2005
entire network: 99 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 03:58 PM UTC
The Biggest Myth in History?

Hmmmm....let me think.....

How about that the concepts of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" are somehow inherent, universal components of human nature, that they are somehow natural elements of human instinct?

If this were true, it would not have taken until 1215 to have developed the Magna Carta, and it would not have taken another 576 years to have ratified the US Constitution.....not to mention the countless brutal wars that have been fought over such notions of Freedom.....and so on, and so on. I think that it is exactly because the idea of Freedom of Speech really isn't part of Human Nature that such documents were ever necessary.

In general, I am afraid, as far as probably the majority of people are concerned, Voltaire....was wrong.
BM2
#151
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: November 19, 2005
entire network: 1,361 Posts
KitMaker Network: 327 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 05:06 PM UTC

This somehow seemed relevant to the moment - I think we all know to whom it may refer...
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 06:02 PM UTC
Andras, my compliments. I like your style of debate. Take no prisoners.


Quoted Text

I thought this thread was about the greatest myths, so my post was about what I think is a myth, not a soldier vs soldier discussion.



Randell, what I understood your point to be was that Hitler's idea that the German soldier was superior to the Allied was mythical. I disagreed with you. Did I misunderstand you?


Quoted Text

The ability of the soldiers is not the same from one point to the next. The capabilities in Normandy, in all armies, were not the same as in the Ardennes. If you pick a point in time and ask who was better, it can be different than another point.



Heartily agreed. Which was why I suggested that a mean average be taken, or that the German soldier at the peak of German power be compared to the Allied soldier at the Allied peak.


Quoted Text

It was more that the follow on forces were unable to resupply Peiper, than he out ran his supplies. Semantics, but Peiper was not to his goal when he was stopped.



I'm afraid it's not semantics. You're discussing tactics, while I'm talking about manpower. My point was that when all things were equal (or as equal as possible in the real world) the Germans were superior. Yes, the tactics of delaying Peiper's logistics by attacking his second-rate supply troops and blowing bridges to delay him, ultimately defeated him, but that is indicative of superior command, not troops. The Spartans were defeated at Thermopylae because they were outnumbered and ultimately outmanouvered -- but does anyone doubt that the Spartan hoplite was superior to the Persian just because the latter defeated the former?


Quoted Text

Our engineers are not relevant? Peiper might have disagreed. They are part of the over all man power picture, yes?



You misunderstand me, mate. The engineers are irrelevant to the debate on the quality of troops, not to the Battle of the Bulge. As I said before, I''m not arguing that the Americans won! As an example, take Skorzeny's boys -- quality troops, but irrelevant to the battle.

I hope you take my meaning.
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 06:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text

'm sorry to contradict again, but the trials were held because Stalin INSISTED on "fair" trials. The Western Allies wanted the summary executions. (Look it up. Very strange twist of events.)
Did those bastards deserve to be hanged? With the exception of Jodl, sure thing. Many, many more would have deserved the same fate. (The trials would have been fair, to be honest, only if Allied "suspects", such as Bomber Harris had been put to trial -this would have been proven it wasn't a "victor's trial'.



Bomber Harris responded to the aggression that was waged by the Nazi's. His response may have been excesive, it may have been wrong, but it was a response non the less. At the time (with the Third Reich in full swing) it was a valid response to the random bombing that the Nazi's conducted. To compare him to the likes of Mengele, Goebels, Hitler et al, shows a sustinct lack of historical sense. I hope...
youngc
Visit this Community
Western Australia, Australia
Member Since: June 05, 2007
entire network: 2,166 Posts
KitMaker Network: 473 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 07:01 PM UTC
David, another good example:

Napoleon's Old Guard was defeated at Waterloo for the first time. This wasn't because they were bad troops, it was because they were in a bad tactical situation.

It is not an argument of the best troops in the Bulge, it is a matter of which side was in a better tactical situation, Germany in that case. In the end, the fuel ran dry and the advantage was lost.
redshirt
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: January 26, 2007
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 07:17 PM UTC
History is written by the victor and therefore inherently biased. .
Just because a crime is openly committed does not mean that it will be prosecuted.
Certainly Curtis “bombs away” Lemay would have been found guilty of war crimes sufficient to earn him execution
Often enough the definition or interpretation of law by a government is adapted to conceal shame rather than pursue justice.
The pot does call the kettle black.
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 - 08:57 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Try to get this book: very interesting, and very controversial to the "common knowledge" (Some interesting bits and pieces about how the post-war map of Europe was formed, too.)
http://www.amazon.com/Nuremberg-Last-Battle-David-Irving/dp/1872197167




Irving is notorious for omitting the bits of history that don't suit his agenda, which is so obvious as to be visible from space, using anything he's written in isolation from other sources is a mistake. He's also a very sloppy writer and his errors about basic facts in the books of his that I've read rule him out as a serious historian.

Oh and as Brennus is supposed to have said Vae victus

David
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Member Since: January 18, 2006
entire network: 1,866 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 03:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Andras, my compliments. I like your style of debate. Take no prisoners.


Quoted Text

I thought this thread was about the greatest myths, so my post was about what I think is a myth, not a soldier vs soldier discussion.



Randell, what I understood your point to be was that Hitler's idea that the German soldier was superior to the Allied was mythical. I disagreed with you. Did I misunderstand you?


Quoted Text

The ability of the soldiers is not the same from one point to the next. The capabilities in Normandy, in all armies, were not the same as in the Ardennes. If you pick a point in time and ask who was better, it can be different than another point.



Heartily agreed. Which was why I suggested that a mean average be taken, or that the German soldier at the peak of German power be compared to the Allied soldier at the Allied peak.


Quoted Text

It was more that the follow on forces were unable to resupply Peiper, than he out ran his supplies. Semantics, but Peiper was not to his goal when he was stopped.



I'm afraid it's not semantics. You're discussing tactics, while I'm talking about manpower. My point was that when all things were equal (or as equal as possible in the real world) the Germans were superior. Yes, the tactics of delaying Peiper's logistics by attacking his second-rate supply troops and blowing bridges to delay him, ultimately defeated him, but that is indicative of superior command, not troops. The Spartans were defeated at Thermopylae because they were outnumbered and ultimately outmanouvered -- but does anyone doubt that the Spartan hoplite was superior to the Persian just because the latter defeated the former?


Quoted Text

Our engineers are not relevant? Peiper might have disagreed. They are part of the over all man power picture, yes?



You misunderstand me, mate. The engineers are irrelevant to the debate on the quality of troops, not to the Battle of the Bulge. As I said before, I''m not arguing that the Americans won! As an example, take Skorzeny's boys -- quality troops, but irrelevant to the battle.

I hope you take my meaning.



David, we are having a good discussion here. I was responding because I did, and do not, agree 100% with you. You have some very good points that I agree with, and others that I do not.

The men folowing Peiper were not supporting units. They were supported by Tiger II's and had decent supporting arms. They failed because they were fought to a stand still by US soldiers. The fighting around Stavelot was some of the most intense some of the Germans had ever seen.

Peiper spent a lot of time cursing the US engineers. More than any other group, they stopped his advance and kept him going every which way. That's why I brought it up.

No, I do not believe in the myth of German superiority. They had an early advantage in training and combat experience. In the Bulge they had superiority in tanks, man power and surprise. The bad weather worked for and against both sides equally. In all respects both sides were equal in experience, training and so on. The US soldier came out on top.

Could the US Army have done as well against the German army in 1940, probably not. We most likely would have got our butts kicked like the British and French. I think we can agree on that!



Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 04:11 AM UTC
Ok, I'm locking this until Rodger can come and decide what to do.
I did ask for the personal comments and attacks to be left out, so there you are.

I won't go over his head, but if it was up to me I would delete a lot of the recent posts.

Don't abuse the fact that Rodger can't be here all the time...

Henk

Moderator edit: Topic cleaned up, offensive posts removed. I will keep the topic locked due to the potential for things to flare up again, which is a shame for there were some interesting discussions going on.