WWII tank Duel

[grumbler]

Again, I don't really agree with that.  The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.

I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.

You are teh funnay.  Long live Captain Canada and his gullible sidekick!

[citizen k]

It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.

Turned the vanquished? Or just the portion of them that suited you? What did you do to the Germans on the Soviet side?

Any attempt to help them would have resulted in the start of WWIII. 

[Razgovory]

Again, I don't really agree with that.  The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.

I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.

You are teh funnay.  Long live Captain Canada and his gullible sidekick!

Please explain the funniness?  I'm a bit lost.

[grumbler]

Please explain the funniness?  I'm a bit lost.

Sorry, explaining it isn't my job.

Re-read the referenced post again, carefully, and see if you don't se why it is funny.  Hint:  it partly has to do with "bias on the part of a highly educated forum."

[Razgovory]

Please explain the funniness?  I'm a bit lost.

Sorry, explaining it isn't my job.

Re-read the referenced post again, carefully, and see if you don't se why it is funny.  Hint:  it partly has to do with "bias on the part of a highly educated forum."

I thought as a teacher, explaining is your job.

[citizen k]

I thought as a teacher, explaining is your job.

He's off the clock.

[Alatriste]

Regarding Italy

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/italy.asp

The armistice was harsh enough, and didn't give the Italians any guarantee about the future peace treaty. I think they were told that the conditions would depend on Italy's behavior, but that was all. They surrendered unconditionally.

On to Germany, the contrast between 1918 and 1945 is shocking and one is tempted to attribute it to the difference between Wilson's "points" and Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender", but there were several other factors in play, like

- Nazi Terror. Hitler almost started his rule murdering a fair share of his own associates and kept on in the same vein to the end...

- Fear of the Soviets. A very understandable fear, specially amongst those that knew what had been German occupation in Russia.

- Versailles. Not only because the new peace treaty was sure to be harsher, but because of what happened in 1918 from the Armistice on. What was to be gained by surrendering?

- Perhaps, the bombing of German cities, which conceivably did embitter civilians more than cower them. This is a contentious point, and by its own nature we lack conclusive evidence.

- Nazi regime policies. They did know what had happened in 1918 and always feared it could happen again, in two versions: Red revolution (to the point of fearing Germans units could appear any day in the front fighting in the Soviet armies) and civilian moral collapse. And the Nazis did work hard to avoid a new 1918...

- Goebbels and his propaganda machine. Much has been said about Hitler's oratory, but in recent times I think we have tended to underestimate Goebbels and his skills. And I'm no expert but I have read that in contrast Wilhelmine propaganda was notoriously crude and primitive, far inferior to the Allied efforts in this field.

- Allied blockade by necessity had to be far less successful than it was in 1918 due to Nazi Germany occupying so much of the European continent until well into 1944.

- War crimes, and specifically the holocaust. All involved - and they were many - knew they faced a very real risk of being judged and hanged. And rightly so...

In short, I think no single factor is enough if taken alone to explain why Germans fought to the end in 1945. But all combined are more than enough. 

[Berkut]

I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.

[Razgovory]

I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.

What is Other losses?

[Malthus]

I suspect the single most important factor is the grip that the hardcore Nazis had over the army after the failed coup attempt.

The higher ranks fought because they risked dangling from SS meathooks if they didn't.

The Nazis ordered the fight to go on because they literally had no other options - they faced Allied nooses, or worse from the Soviets, and must have known it.

The Germans fighting against the Soviets is no surprise - the Soviet army was doing unto the German people as they had been done by, as they advanced. Given that the Western allies refused to be split from the Soviet alliance, that meant fighting against the west as well.

In short, the choice was between a military coup replacing the Nazis from within in the hope of cutting some sort of deal if the Germans *themselves* hanged their leadership, or fighting on. The coup was attempted and failed.

[Agelastus]

I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.

What is Other losses?

I believe he is referring to the book referenced here.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html

[Admiral Yi]

You're a funny guy Martim.

The Germans didn't surrender because of an unpublished and unexecuted internal US memorandum.

The Russians would have respected "German neutrality," just like they respected 4 power control of Berlin and democratically elected governments of all the Warsaw Pact nations.

West German was an imperial possession.  Leave it to the diabolical Americans to come up with the trick of paying tribute *to* our possessions.

Please, more, I beg you.

[Martim Silva]

I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.

Cut the crap.

The often-spouted myth that the Western Allies were "amazing saviors" who were in total contrast with the Soviets in the Occupation of Germany has already been debunked by reputable works.

I advise you to read "After the Reich - the brutal History of Allied Occupation", by Giles McDonough. It is avaliable on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Reich-Brutal-History-Occupation/dp/0465003389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265804676&sr=8-1

It is not a disputed work. NOBODY says what is there was not true, because it WAS.

It just so happen that the pseudo-historians that usually write the books for Western audiences like to skip the 1945-1948 period of the Occupation, preferring to concentrate on the years when the allies decided to use the Germans as extra troops against the USSR and thus started to treat them more humanely.

IN FACT, during the early years of the Occupation, the Allies behaved far worse to the Germans than the Germans ever did to the French or the Poles. And believe me, that's hard to do.

As noted in the "The European Diary of John F. Kennedy", there was massive looting:

The British had gone into Bremen ahead of us -- and everyone was unanimous in their description of British looting and destruction, which had been very heavy. They had taken everything which at all related to the sea -- ships, small boats, lubricants, machinery, etc."

http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Leadership-European-Kennedy-Summer/dp/0895264595

Also, executions of anyone who disobeyed the occupation authorities were common, the German Red Cross was disbanded, the International Red Cross had its activities restricted to avoid giving much medical care to the population, food was heavily restricted, the number of dead civilians skyrocketed - over four million dead in just a few years.

Holocaust-level numbers, but which fit well with the "eliminating Germans to lower the country to a pastoral level" ideas of Morgenthau.

Not to mention the use of slaves - 750,000 to France, 300,000 to the US (mostly to do slave work in Texas), and 20,000 to Britain (the Brits only took a token number, they believed they had enough people in their colonies). The Union took five million.

Read it. It WILL change forever your idea of the Allies being "benign" in any way towards the Germans during the early years of the Occupation. The only leader who opposed this was Patton (who was outraged at the demands for slaves by Democracies).

The Germans didn't surrender because of an unpublished and unexecuted internal US memorandum.

No, it's because all the Allies had made it plain clear what their goals were for Germany - which included getting rid of Germany, irrespective of any negotiation or regime in Berlin.

The Russians would have respected "German neutrality," just like they respected 4 power control of Berlin and democratically elected governments of all the Warsaw Pact nations.

Russia would have respected German neutrality, just as it respected Austrian neutrality (both sides retreated from there), it respected Yugoslavias' decision to split from the bloc, it respected the line drawn with Churchill and kept out of Greece.

Besides, you should all have already know how the USSR saw the area by the Warsaw Pacts' war plans, which have been made public years ago - in case of war, we would have immediately answered with a massive nuclear assault on all your border positions, so it is DAMN MEANINGLESS where your troops would be stationed - you would not be able to "protect" anything.

And, of course, this plan shows well that there was no intent to conquer the area, just to make a buffer zone (no point in conquering wastelands).

Because what the USSR always wanted was a sanitary cordon between itself and potential threats. Which is why Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece and indeed East Germany were expendeable - they were not around the borders. The Bulgarians stayed because they like Russians.

Frankly, it's getting pretty tiresome to always listen to the same broken record coming from the West that "the Russians are BAAAD, so all our treaty-breaking and military buildup on their borders is *perfectly* justified, as we're saints who never attacked anyone ever".

PUH-LEASE. We see this shit even today. Russia has no intention of threatening anyone, yet NATO keeps moving eastwards (disregarding all treaties of non-expansion it signed), it is rearming Georgia (what, do you want them to start another war?) and it keeps putting missiles next to Russia (the ones in Rumania are very close to violating all the treaties on the Black Sea).

And all of this without even consulting first with Moscow. Yesterday I was on the line with Moscow (the Russian ambassador here is my friend from the happier times of the Union), and the Kremlin is *pissed*. All the moves took them by surprise. Russia feels ignored and surrounded by a pack of ravenous wolves that are trying to snap at its heels.

Honestly, how DENSE are you people? Are Russias' intentions so hard to grasp? I can't even beguin to see things from your perspective, all you do is move troops closer, place threats everywhere, and then have the incredible gall to say Russia is the threat!

Frankly, Hitler knew how to "read" us 1,000,000 better than you. For our misery. 

West German was an imperial possession.  Leave it to the diabolical Americans to come up with the trick of paying tribute *to* our possessions.

We wanted to retreat and leave the Germans to rule themselves. Trade would not be restricted.

Because unlike the West, the Union did not feel an imperative need to keep its army on non-vital conquests. You refused, doomed them to decades of division, and them armed them to use as cannon fodder against the Union.

How incredibly friendly of you. And you still want them to thank you for it.

Besides, how we see in the Ukraine, you only help who you want. Without cash support, we see the gigantic disasters that western backed regimes are to their own peoples. It comes as no surprise that V.F. Yanukovych is now the President of the country and that the "wonderful" candidate you supported in 2004-2005 can't even get 5% of the vote.

[grumbler]

Cut the crap.

The often-spouted myth that the Western Allies were "amazing saviors" who were in total contrast with the Soviets in the Occupation of Germany has already been debunked by reputable works.

  I love this!  "Cut the crap" followed by the biggest load of crap in the thread so far.  The only person "oft" spouting this strawman argument about "the Western Allies were 'amazing saviors'" is you.

Have you no shame?

[Admiral Yi]

How did the Allies make clear their goal of getting rid of Germany?

Where did the Greek communists get their arms?

Does Georgia count when you say Russia has no intention of attacking anyone?  Does the Ukraine?