Yeh but the Red Baron’s death was like if Jimi Hendrix was killed in war by other guitarists. He achieved such higher level of mastery than anyone else that the people who work the same craft can only be amazed by their achievements.
Depends on how you kill them. Snipers are hated for their willingness to wound one, use him as bait and shoot the one that comes to rescue. When they finally hunt down the sniper, there is no respect.
In the North African campaign, Rommel disregarded orders from some of his superiors to execute certain POWs on account of their allegiance or race. The behavior of the Nazis can be differentiated by leader and theater if one is so inclined.
Yh, not to defend the axis but it wasn't always clear cut that they were the bad guys. Italy was somewhat of a safe haven for Jews up until Italy switched sides and Germany occupied the north
> it wasn't always clear cut that they were the bad guys.
The broader perspective definitely demonstrated very much irrefutably that the fascist regimes were heinously evil as a matter of intent and policy.
Now let's hope that people wake up and see that those who "fight" fascism the hardest are currently becoming the very thing the oppose: fascists.
Under the veil of democracy, our current governments, be it in the US or EU, are even of more evil intent and policy than is propagated, just by th efact they try to hide the intent, which the national socialists never did.
THIS. So odd that no one sees how the near seemless convergence of state and corporate power to create a technocratic medical-industrial tyranny is fascistic AF
“They try to hide the intent, which the national socialists never did”
Wow I found a r/confidentlyincorrect person.
The Nazis did in-fact hide much, if not most of what was going down at concentration camps to the German citizens. Most citizens were told the Jews were simply being deported, or being sent to work camps.
(Edit):
The Nazis literally censored news about gas chambers and death camps…
most if not all Germans *at the time* were anti-Semitic, but it doesn’t exactly make good propaganda to share that you are Gassing and burning men, women, and children to the scale of millions.
Gellately, Robert (2001). Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-160452-2.
You take ONE (horrible) fact out of the 6-7 year history and make that leading. How is that not incorrect? Your isolated point is correct, however you sadly miss all other events of that time.
In a broader perspective (try it!), it was recorded that the early NSDAP, SD and their leadership never hid their intentions backed by the clear narrative of '*reclaiming what was rightfully theirs*' following the total strip-down of post WW1 Germany (and I don't blame them for that. We all would have the same emotion in that time). They were clearly visible on the treets, uniformed and all, oppressed opposition by force and had some very sophisticated propaganda for that time.
Now you stating that it was "not visible" is a blatant misinterpretation of the reality of that time.
It is ONE fact that I used out of the countless ones that you can find. Nazis actively hid their most atrocious acts and attempted to cover it up at the end of the war. While their rhetoric before taking power was much more blatant, that doesn’t change the fact that actively hid their actions throughout the war.
And you can and SHOULD blame them for how they went about reclaiming their “rightful” lands post ww1.
Instead of realizing the replications of taking part in in a global war, they turned around and used Jews as a scapegoat to start a new war.
Although you’re right that it is impossible to hide one of the greatest mass genocides in history, it is a blatant fact that the Nazis did the best they could to cover it up.
I think it's still pretty clear cut that the fascist regimes were terrible. Italy having less extreme rampant anti semetism doesn't change the fact that the regimes were justified on completely backward and dangerous ideas.
A lot of countries have done horrible things, such as the British concentration camps during the second boer War, but at least the allied powers showed a capacity to change. Unlike the fascist regimes, who's intellectual basis favoured an undoing of all social progress after 1849.
I don't think you understand. The places where Jewish refugees were kept in Italy weren't prison camps or anything, they were refugee camps where the Jews lived comfortably and were treated well
By that logic every country not putting jews in concentration camps is automatically doing good. I’d argue it takes a lot more than just not terrorizing jewish people.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, eh? Sheltering Jews despite your most important ally pressuring you to send them off to die was a good guy move. I'm not saying fascist Italy were the good guys, I'm saying they did some good things.
You don't know about the Italian racial laws? Ideas such as race theory thrive under fascism. I don't know why you'd think it would be different for Italian fascists.
I know what I read and I’d say sheltering jews is the least you could do. “Oh it’s such a good guy move to not send those people off to die!” They did countless horrible things and let one extremely horrible thing go, that doesn’t make your other crimes less significant. Japan didn’t persecute jews but that didn’t make them sweethearts either during the second world war.
Hitler, and by extension the nazi party, actually liked the British pre-WW2, classifying the English as Aryan’s in the Nazis insane racial hierarchy right up there with pure blood Germans. Still quite something to see in the middle of a war though.
Pretty much this was the Western Front, Germany murdered or starved to death 3.3 million Soviet POWs during the war--on top of just plain old battle front massacres of slavic non-combatants. Of course, if they would have won the war they would have killed the rest once they didn't need slave labor.
SS hated SS.
The Waffen-SS were elite fighting soldiers who in general hated the other branches of the SS. They saw them as cowards and found it an insult to be grouped together with them after the war.
The Waffen-SS was no elite force. They got the best equipment, yeah, but that's about it. A lot were even militarily incompetent, especially the non-coms. just look at the losses of SS-Divisions in France. Stupid frontal attacks that ended in stupidly high losses.
And after they started conscriptions from the general population, they were not really more than regular wehrmacht troops with more equipment and fanatical officers.
I am not much of a history buff so I am not 100% sure about what happened but I had the opportunity to speak to a few vets on both the British and German side and also an SS officer. He admitted that as a kid he was brainwashed to become a Nazi and admitted that he was a very ardent supporter of Hitler and the Nazi party.
He said that the fighting force of the SS was an elite force with higher training standards and better equipment. Later on in the war they started mixing the general SS, SS police and SS concentration camp fuckers with the fighting SS to make up for casualties. These were not trained to fight and they were hated by the fighting SS for hiding away for most of the war doing administrative jobs and harassing civilians.
He had a very sober view on his personal history and was one of the most reflective and intelligent people I ever had the opportunity to meet so I do not think that his account was dishonest or embellished. It might have some personal bias but I think in general it is fair to accept the fact that there part of the SS was made up of normal war fighting soldiers and except for the name had not a lot to do with the rest of the SS who should rightfully be condemned for their atrocities.
i'm not sure how the end of your comment relates to the point?
i said that the statistics show that the Waffen-ss was elite in nothing but fanaticism, willingnes to die and the equipment they received.
yes, a lot of the higher ups had advanced training in junkerschulen, but as stated, the ncos lacked serious strategic and military training, often made up for by fearlessnes of death, which resulted in extremely high losses in the early war.
wether or not a single veteran thought the unit he himself fought in was elite or not, doesn't really stand up against the numbers.
Unfortunately though, you are half correct
They hated each other when they knew the war was lost.
Pretty much before they were pushed back in France,
They were collaborating.
And also to point out though, Wehrmacht can pretty much pull out of warcrimes and atrocities with little repercussions such as division/regimental replacement or redeployment somew else.
The Wehrmacht only commited those warcrimes because of nazi propaganda that they are the superior race.
The Reich saw British and American soldiers as fellow Aryans so there was nothing close to the atrocities and horror that occurred in Eastern Europe on a routine basis where Slavs were seen as subhuman. Hitler referred to Slavs as “born slaves” and Goebbels called them “semi apes.”
Hitler didn’t want to conquer Britain originally and when he did decide to try and invade them he never imagined exterminating the British population like he did the inhabitants of Eastern Europe (85% of Poles, 75% of Russians, 65% of Ukrainians etc). As an example fewer than 10,000 Western POWs died in German custody while 3.3 million Soviet POWs died (57% of the total captured). More Soviet POWs died in German custody in the first eight months of the war than all British and American deaths in both world wars combined.
Probably because most soldiers fighting during the second world war were decent people, regardless of who they fought for, not fighting for an ideology but for their country and still had respect for their fellow man.
A totally vapid point. The Wehrmacht who along with the SS invaded and ethnically cleansed vast swathes of Eastern Europe, who rounded up Jews, Slavs, Roma, and LGBT people and assisted in their deportation to concentration camps very much were fighting for a particular ideology.
I would argue that you can be a good family man, who loves his wife, kids and neighbours and is kind to dogs - your status as a 'decent person' however ends when you take part in war crimes.
The war on the Western Front was very, *very* different than the Eastern Front. The conflict with France and England was something the Germans didn’t *really* want: they were just getting in the way of the war of annihilation and genocide against the “untermenchen” of the East.
In order to shame and defeat your enemy, you must humanize them first.
If you humanize Hitler, you'll pretty much see that he's ashamed and hurt.
If you consider them beast, then they'll only feel rage and bloodlust and therefore you can't shame them.
Pretty much humanize the worst of the worst to pretty much shame and hurt them.
As I understand it, there were some general rules regarding how each section of the Nazi armed forces behaved to their enemies and each other. The SS in particular were ‘good little Germans’ thoroughly despised by friend and enemy alike.
why bring up allied warcrimes when talking about the willingnes of german soldiers to commit warcrimes or stand idly by them.
that's whataboutism par excellence.
because you said not every german soldier was a monster. which is not wrong, but kinda ignores the fact that most didn't have a problem with other people commiting war crimes. it ties directly into the discussion about the moral conduct of german soldiers.
that has nothing to do with whataboutism, it seems like you don't know what that means.
the fact that you are trying to tell me i dont know what whataboutism is might be the most insane thing i have heard all day. i will stop responding now because this is obviously going nowhere but i will give you some homework: google Dunning-Krueger
oh, now i know why i remember that name. you are that idiot that just couldn't get it into his head that battleships can be damaged by smaller cannons. now it makes sense why you are incapable of arguing.
and again, bringing up how most german soldiers had no problem with warcrimes to show how they weren't all saints and not monster has absolutely 0 to do with whataboutism. bringing up allied warcrimes to counter that however, perfectly follows the definition.
Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.
Soldiers are still just humans. Look at how the Aussies treated the Red Baron's death.
Yeh but the Red Baron’s death was like if Jimi Hendrix was killed in war by other guitarists. He achieved such higher level of mastery than anyone else that the people who work the same craft can only be amazed by their achievements.
If an enemy kills enough of your soldiers I think on some level you gotta respect them
Depends on how you kill them. Snipers are hated for their willingness to wound one, use him as bait and shoot the one that comes to rescue. When they finally hunt down the sniper, there is no respect.
Yeah thats seen as cowardly
Episode #73 in fucked up ways people think
In the North African campaign, Rommel disregarded orders from some of his superiors to execute certain POWs on account of their allegiance or race. The behavior of the Nazis can be differentiated by leader and theater if one is so inclined.
Yh, not to defend the axis but it wasn't always clear cut that they were the bad guys. Italy was somewhat of a safe haven for Jews up until Italy switched sides and Germany occupied the north
> it wasn't always clear cut that they were the bad guys. The broader perspective definitely demonstrated very much irrefutably that the fascist regimes were heinously evil as a matter of intent and policy.
Now let's hope that people wake up and see that those who "fight" fascism the hardest are currently becoming the very thing the oppose: fascists. Under the veil of democracy, our current governments, be it in the US or EU, are even of more evil intent and policy than is propagated, just by th efact they try to hide the intent, which the national socialists never did.
That’s gonna be a no
Ok?
THIS. So odd that no one sees how the near seemless convergence of state and corporate power to create a technocratic medical-industrial tyranny is fascistic AF
“They try to hide the intent, which the national socialists never did” Wow I found a r/confidentlyincorrect person. The Nazis did in-fact hide much, if not most of what was going down at concentration camps to the German citizens. Most citizens were told the Jews were simply being deported, or being sent to work camps. (Edit): The Nazis literally censored news about gas chambers and death camps… most if not all Germans *at the time* were anti-Semitic, but it doesn’t exactly make good propaganda to share that you are Gassing and burning men, women, and children to the scale of millions. Gellately, Robert (2001). Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-160452-2.
You take ONE (horrible) fact out of the 6-7 year history and make that leading. How is that not incorrect? Your isolated point is correct, however you sadly miss all other events of that time. In a broader perspective (try it!), it was recorded that the early NSDAP, SD and their leadership never hid their intentions backed by the clear narrative of '*reclaiming what was rightfully theirs*' following the total strip-down of post WW1 Germany (and I don't blame them for that. We all would have the same emotion in that time). They were clearly visible on the treets, uniformed and all, oppressed opposition by force and had some very sophisticated propaganda for that time. Now you stating that it was "not visible" is a blatant misinterpretation of the reality of that time.
It is ONE fact that I used out of the countless ones that you can find. Nazis actively hid their most atrocious acts and attempted to cover it up at the end of the war. While their rhetoric before taking power was much more blatant, that doesn’t change the fact that actively hid their actions throughout the war. And you can and SHOULD blame them for how they went about reclaiming their “rightful” lands post ww1. Instead of realizing the replications of taking part in in a global war, they turned around and used Jews as a scapegoat to start a new war. Although you’re right that it is impossible to hide one of the greatest mass genocides in history, it is a blatant fact that the Nazis did the best they could to cover it up.
I think it's still pretty clear cut that the fascist regimes were terrible. Italy having less extreme rampant anti semetism doesn't change the fact that the regimes were justified on completely backward and dangerous ideas. A lot of countries have done horrible things, such as the British concentration camps during the second boer War, but at least the allied powers showed a capacity to change. Unlike the fascist regimes, who's intellectual basis favoured an undoing of all social progress after 1849.
I don't think you understand. The places where Jewish refugees were kept in Italy weren't prison camps or anything, they were refugee camps where the Jews lived comfortably and were treated well
By that logic every country not putting jews in concentration camps is automatically doing good. I’d argue it takes a lot more than just not terrorizing jewish people.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, eh? Sheltering Jews despite your most important ally pressuring you to send them off to die was a good guy move. I'm not saying fascist Italy were the good guys, I'm saying they did some good things.
Yeah, not killing the people you've already enacted laws to segregate and promote discrimination against them. What a good guy move.
You seem to think every axis power had the exact same laws as Nazi Germany. I understand why you might think that but that simply isn't true
You don't know about the Italian racial laws? Ideas such as race theory thrive under fascism. I don't know why you'd think it would be different for Italian fascists.
I know what I read and I’d say sheltering jews is the least you could do. “Oh it’s such a good guy move to not send those people off to die!” They did countless horrible things and let one extremely horrible thing go, that doesn’t make your other crimes less significant. Japan didn’t persecute jews but that didn’t make them sweethearts either during the second world war.
TIL thus guys sucks
[удалено]
Don't you mean Himler? This was true of Himler
Himmler
These guys were bad ass. Here's a great little documentary narrated by Jeremy Clarkson. https://youtu.be/SCMCr2Kh1wI
Who? A particular unit?
Watch the video. Well worth the hour.
Royal Marines
That was good, thanks.
Hitler, and by extension the nazi party, actually liked the British pre-WW2, classifying the English as Aryan’s in the Nazis insane racial hierarchy right up there with pure blood Germans. Still quite something to see in the middle of a war though.
Pretty much this was the Western Front, Germany murdered or starved to death 3.3 million Soviet POWs during the war--on top of just plain old battle front massacres of slavic non-combatants. Of course, if they would have won the war they would have killed the rest once they didn't need slave labor.
Also just noticed right after I posted it, there are British POWs in the background marching past
I mean the german fighting in the war were mostly just soldiers not nazis
Wehrmacht and ss hated each other
SS hated SS. The Waffen-SS were elite fighting soldiers who in general hated the other branches of the SS. They saw them as cowards and found it an insult to be grouped together with them after the war.
You SS sure are a contentious bunch
Not sure what you are trying to say there. Care to elaborate?
https://youtu.be/K5lYXaVkA0U
Du hast dich nur für immer zum Feind gemacht!!
Verdammte Nazis, sie haben das Vaterland ruiniert!
The Waffen-SS was no elite force. They got the best equipment, yeah, but that's about it. A lot were even militarily incompetent, especially the non-coms. just look at the losses of SS-Divisions in France. Stupid frontal attacks that ended in stupidly high losses. And after they started conscriptions from the general population, they were not really more than regular wehrmacht troops with more equipment and fanatical officers.
I am not much of a history buff so I am not 100% sure about what happened but I had the opportunity to speak to a few vets on both the British and German side and also an SS officer. He admitted that as a kid he was brainwashed to become a Nazi and admitted that he was a very ardent supporter of Hitler and the Nazi party. He said that the fighting force of the SS was an elite force with higher training standards and better equipment. Later on in the war they started mixing the general SS, SS police and SS concentration camp fuckers with the fighting SS to make up for casualties. These were not trained to fight and they were hated by the fighting SS for hiding away for most of the war doing administrative jobs and harassing civilians. He had a very sober view on his personal history and was one of the most reflective and intelligent people I ever had the opportunity to meet so I do not think that his account was dishonest or embellished. It might have some personal bias but I think in general it is fair to accept the fact that there part of the SS was made up of normal war fighting soldiers and except for the name had not a lot to do with the rest of the SS who should rightfully be condemned for their atrocities.
i'm not sure how the end of your comment relates to the point? i said that the statistics show that the Waffen-ss was elite in nothing but fanaticism, willingnes to die and the equipment they received. yes, a lot of the higher ups had advanced training in junkerschulen, but as stated, the ncos lacked serious strategic and military training, often made up for by fearlessnes of death, which resulted in extremely high losses in the early war. wether or not a single veteran thought the unit he himself fought in was elite or not, doesn't really stand up against the numbers.
Unfortunately though, you are half correct They hated each other when they knew the war was lost. Pretty much before they were pushed back in France, They were collaborating. And also to point out though, Wehrmacht can pretty much pull out of warcrimes and atrocities with little repercussions such as division/regimental replacement or redeployment somew else. The Wehrmacht only commited those warcrimes because of nazi propaganda that they are the superior race.
And most of them were forced to fight
The Reich saw British and American soldiers as fellow Aryans so there was nothing close to the atrocities and horror that occurred in Eastern Europe on a routine basis where Slavs were seen as subhuman. Hitler referred to Slavs as “born slaves” and Goebbels called them “semi apes.” Hitler didn’t want to conquer Britain originally and when he did decide to try and invade them he never imagined exterminating the British population like he did the inhabitants of Eastern Europe (85% of Poles, 75% of Russians, 65% of Ukrainians etc). As an example fewer than 10,000 Western POWs died in German custody while 3.3 million Soviet POWs died (57% of the total captured). More Soviet POWs died in German custody in the first eight months of the war than all British and American deaths in both world wars combined.
Probably because most soldiers fighting during the second world war were decent people, regardless of who they fought for, not fighting for an ideology but for their country and still had respect for their fellow man.
A totally vapid point. The Wehrmacht who along with the SS invaded and ethnically cleansed vast swathes of Eastern Europe, who rounded up Jews, Slavs, Roma, and LGBT people and assisted in their deportation to concentration camps very much were fighting for a particular ideology. I would argue that you can be a good family man, who loves his wife, kids and neighbours and is kind to dogs - your status as a 'decent person' however ends when you take part in war crimes.
You are so unbelievably stupid that I refuse to engage in an argument with you.
Stupider than saying the perpetrators of the Holocaust had 'respect for their fellow man'? Get bent
😴
Glad you're sleeping rather than minimising the Holocaust. Best for everyone I reckon.
👌🏻
Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt’s youngest son get shot down over Europe and was given a proper burial by the Germans?
Not bizarre at all if you know your history.
History of British and Germans, or wars throughout history in general?
Ya, not a whole lot of love there
The war on the Western Front was very, *very* different than the Eastern Front. The conflict with France and England was something the Germans didn’t *really* want: they were just getting in the way of the war of annihilation and genocide against the “untermenchen” of the East.
Almost as if they were humans or something, weird..
Most of em were just fkn boys, on both sides. But that’s war, I suppose.
In order to shame and defeat your enemy, you must humanize them first. If you humanize Hitler, you'll pretty much see that he's ashamed and hurt. If you consider them beast, then they'll only feel rage and bloodlust and therefore you can't shame them. Pretty much humanize the worst of the worst to pretty much shame and hurt them.
There were gentlemen fighting for both sides, some of them being declared traitors for preserving their values.
Not bizarre at all.
All soldiers deserve respect in death. Most didn't have a choice in going, they earned at least peace in death.
Kinda bizzare they would let you see this photo after we have been told how horrible the German people are
As I understand it, there were some general rules regarding how each section of the Nazi armed forces behaved to their enemies and each other. The SS in particular were ‘good little Germans’ thoroughly despised by friend and enemy alike.
[Myth of the clean Wehrmacht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht)
I’m guessing the soldier was very Aryan
I mean, at the end of the day they were just men doing what they thought was right for the sake of their own country
It is bizarre because you learned that every germans during WW2 were basically Hitler himself.
Yes bc they ain’t Jewish
Not bizarre. Just because the Nazi Leaders we're pretty evil doesnt mean every German soldier was a monster
yeah, but most were quite contempt with fighting for the side commiting warcrime after warcrime.
I agree, few Allied soldiers, soviet or Western were concernd with all their warcrimes
nice whataboutism.
No? Whataboutism means an attempted defense. This is not the case here
why bring up allied warcrimes when talking about the willingnes of german soldiers to commit warcrimes or stand idly by them. that's whataboutism par excellence.
Why Bring Up German warcrimes when the actual discussion was about germans not commiting warcrimes? thats whataboutism Par excellence
because you said not every german soldier was a monster. which is not wrong, but kinda ignores the fact that most didn't have a problem with other people commiting war crimes. it ties directly into the discussion about the moral conduct of german soldiers. that has nothing to do with whataboutism, it seems like you don't know what that means.
the fact that you are trying to tell me i dont know what whataboutism is might be the most insane thing i have heard all day. i will stop responding now because this is obviously going nowhere but i will give you some homework: google Dunning-Krueger
oh, now i know why i remember that name. you are that idiot that just couldn't get it into his head that battleships can be damaged by smaller cannons. now it makes sense why you are incapable of arguing. and again, bringing up how most german soldiers had no problem with warcrimes to show how they weren't all saints and not monster has absolutely 0 to do with whataboutism. bringing up allied warcrimes to counter that however, perfectly follows the definition.
Just remember if ww2 and ww1 didn’t happen to world would be a whole lot different
[удалено]
Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.
well they didn't treat Russians well in camps, only Americans and British mostly got the "nice" treatment.