Battleground Prussia Book ?

[Jan-Hendrik]

The term "Revenge" was invented by Stalin to hide the disastrous activities of Red Army anywhere they invaded foreign territories....see how they behaved in the Baltics, in Hungary, Poland or Romania....

And, sorry folks, but NOWHERE the Wehrmacht occupied territories it was allowed to the soldiers to to kill, to loot, to rape. This totally absence of justice which the population faced under Red Army occupation mittle Europa did not face since the Middle Ages.

Jan-Hendrik

[Richard Hargreaves]

Dr. Buttar did an outstanding job of describing the suffering of the German civilian population who can thank Hitler and the Fascist politicans for their misery.

Amen to that. While a lot of Germans suffered at the hands of the Red Army in 1945, a hell of a lot in the East died because of Nazi, not Russian, policies; 90,000 corpses were found in the fields and ditches south and west of Breslau alone when the snows thawed, having died during the 'great flight'; you can't blame the Soviets for that...

[pimberg]

Very well stated Jan-Hendrik.

Furthermore the statements/comments of others seem to me wrong. If you use their logic it almost justifies "September 11", the atrocities by the Vietcong, NVA and others (eg: IRA) that were or are anti-American / anti-English.

I guess I am biased because I know people who experienced the Soviet army in east Germany and massive American bombing attacks in west Germany. But then these Germans were asking for it weren't they? = what a load of rubbish!

[Jan-Hendrik]

As far as I remember it was Stalin who encouraged Hitler to the Partition of Poland and who gave Hitler the security to wage the conflict with Poland...


Jan-Hendrik

[Michate]

Who can blame the Russians for exacting what they believed was appropriate revenge? The Germans were lucky that all of their officers were not shot out of hand upon the conclusion of the war as Stalin is reportedly to have advocated.

My dear, is this seriously your opinion? Seems too bad to me you did not have the pleasure to experience the justice of Stalin's system yourself.

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

Speaking of the "revenge" excuse once more, one have to ask that since WW2 was a war and war is killing and dying, why should the Russians have a special right to adopt the revenge excuse? In fact, by that standard Finns would have had the right to kill every Russian we came across. And Germans would have the same right with the British and the French as the latter two declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Frankly, it seems that the revenge excuse is acceptable for only those who were Germany´s enemies, never the other way around. It is the very same that many PC authors allways explain how Allied soldiers shooting PoWs "had seen their comrades killed" etc while the same is never accpeted for the German side. Double standards of the worst kind.

Similar double standards apply to Pearl Harbor attack. Many Americans that seem sane on the outside degenerate into foaming nuts when they describe such an "evil sneak attack". Yet, the very same people have nothing negative to comment on the Israeli sneak attack that srated the 6 Day War. In fact, the latter is hailed as a masterpiece of planning and execution and a prime example of Israeli art of war. Again, double standards at work.

So, if one wishes to maintain his honesty, he either condems all sneak attacks or condemns none like Macchiavelli did.

[panzermahn]

Speaking of the "revenge" excuse once more, one have to ask that since WW2 was a war and war is killing and dying, why should the Russians have a special right to adopt the revenge excuse? In fact, by that standard Finns would have had the right to kill every Russian we came across. And Germans would have the same right with the British and the French as the latter two declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Frankly, it seems that the revenge excuse is acceptable for only those who were Germany´s enemies, never the other way around. It is the very same that many PC authors allways explain how Allied soldiers shooting PoWs "had seen their comrades killed" etc while the same is never accpeted for the German side. Double standards of the worst kind.

Similar double standards apply to Pearl Harbor attack. Many Americans that seem sane on the outside degenerate into foaming nuts when they describe such an "evil sneak attack". Yet, the very same people have nothing negative to comment on the Israeli sneak attack that srated the 6 Day War. In fact, the latter is hailed as a masterpiece of planning and execution and a prime example of Israeli art of war. Again, double standards at work.

So, if one wishes to maintain his honesty, he either condems all sneak attacks or condemns none like Macchiavelli did.

Very well said. No many people knew that it was the Americans themselves railroaded Japan into Pearl Harbour or Stalin cunningly manipulate the political situation in Europe until WW2 erupts.

I am keeping hearing that Allied troops shooting PoWs because they are "combat stressed out", seeing their "comrades got killed" by the enemy and it acceptable but not for the Axis side as though the Germans never see any of their "comrades got killed" nor suffer any combat stress.

When the Germans interned people, it's crimes against humanity (despite some internees in those camps are common criminals)

When the Americans interned people, it's about "national security"

Julius Streicher got hanged because he wrote nonsense in his newspaper as well as for "incitement of hate" but Ilya Ehrenburg was fretted in Allied press despite his calls for "kill every German"

[pimberg]

EXACTLY Panzermahn and Rotanhäntäpistin you are right.
One could write a book on the double standard of glossary of terms and descriptions (eg: German compared to American/English/Soviet). One prime example is "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists" .
But one has to be prepared for the standard name-calling and character assassination (eg: fascist, nazi, anti-semite, etc.) if you push this subject and it's just not worth it.
As a rule I never post anything on these forums that turn into becoming emotional and argumentative. Normally I just shake my head and laugh to myself. But some of the comments about the so-called justified revenge of the Red Army has made my blood boil.

[Richard Hargreaves]

Not so much justify as explains/accounts for - there's a very big difference. Should Red Army soldiers have been called to account for their actions? Absolutely. Very occasionally they were (see e.g. Konev's order in late January) and there were instances certainly in Breslau of Soviet troops being punished for crimes. Such punishments are alas all too rare...

In my mind it boils down to a (very simplistic) explanation: German crimes against the Russian people were largely "top down", ie ordered and endorsed from above; those by the Red Army are, by and large, bottom up - of course the line did become blurred in both cases.

[Prit]

I refer you to the opening Shakespeare quote in my book:

Hear me more plainly.
I have in equal balance justly weigh’d
What wrongs our arms may do, what wrongs we suffer,
And find our griefs heavier than our offences.

It is human nature to perceive the crimes committed against us as greater than the crimes we have committed. War is terrible, and terrible things were done in this war. The victors exercised their opportunity to declare that the crimes of the vanquished were greater than the crimes of the victors - there is nothing new in that.

Richard makes a very good point, though: do not confuse explaining events with justifying them. Even the acts of 'random' killers are actually explicable; those explanations do not necessarily justify them.

Prit

[pimberg]

Prit,
You have sumed it all up - exceptionally well worded. Thankyou.

Richard,
Generally you're right too. I can't deny that. Thankyou.