We have a couple of people here from the old Soviet Union and at least one more from the Eastern Bloc. You don't have to be from there to answer this though. How did the Soviets explain their actions in the first part of Second World War? The part where they were fighting on the wrong side and were defacto allies with the Nazis? These are presumably uncomfortable facts for the Reds, who (correctly) portrayed the Nazis as an irredeemable evil. I know they denied secret clauses of the M-R Pact, but it's hard to deny the joint invasion of Poland.
From the Stalin apologists on the Paradox boards they were buying time and trying to push the fascists to the west as much as possible. I presume that was also why they had the French Communist party attempt to undermine the French war effort. Wanted to force the Germans as far west and they could.
I wish I still had my little history booklets from the Soviet Embassy. The Estonia one was a gas.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2014, 08:18:28 PM
I wish I still had my little history booklets from the Soviet Embassy. The Estonia one was a gas.
My East German one about East Germany is great. They enjoyed all the freedoms a Western democracy had, plus all the awesome economic benefits of socialism (in which everyone voluntarily and enthusiastically participated).
Don't have much time, but a quick explanation:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
How did the Soviets explain their actions in the first part of Second World War? The part where they were fighting on the wrong side and were defacto allies with the Nazis?
The Union was fighting on the wrong side? The Union never fought alongside the fascists.
'Defacto allies'? You mean, trade as in time of peace means 'defacto allies'? Guess the Swiss, the Swedes and the Turks will be amazed to find out that they were 'defacto allies' of the Fascists.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
I know they denied secret clauses of the M-R Pact, but it's hard to deny the joint invasion of Poland.
You mean, going for Poland to take back the territories that were historically Russian, taken by force in the aftermath of the 1920 fiasco (less than 2 decades ago) and had a Polish minority? Getting what is rightfully yours is no wrong. If it was, then France was in the wrong when it declared war on Germany in 1914 to recover its eastern provinces.
To me more to the point about the Pact, since its contents have been revealed:
1. Before the start of the War, the Western Powers did approach the Union with proposals of an alliance. Which was kinda nice, since they had so far treated the Union with contempt at best and total attempts at isolation at worst.
That said, their proposals pretty much involved a two-front war against Germany in which - it was quite clear - the Union would do the lion's share of the fighting, with the western powers waiting to take advantage. And the rewards for after the war would be dubious at best for the Union [suffice to remember that in WWI Russia was part of the Allies and ended up ceding Finland, the Baltic States, western Belorussia, Bessarabia and part of the Caucasus], but would certainly remove a great foe for the Westerners.
So thanks, but no thanks (and what happened later to Poland proved that the westerners indended to sit behind the Maginot Line as much as possible and let the others do all the fighting).
2. Remember that in 1939 all bar (some in) Germany assumed the war would be fought in a similar way to WWI. That meant trenches and massive losses. MUCH better to sit it out at start, let all capitalists slaughter themselves and only enter when both sides were exhausted (a similar, but reverse, argument has been made for the Western Allies by, I believe, Pat Buchanan).
Also, many at the time said that the advent of modern air bombardment could destroy civilization. There was a genuine fear of those air machines.
3. While the Western Capitalists only offered the spilling of much blood for basically nothing to the Union, Hitler was in the position to offer an unpposed reconquest of lost territories, with minimal amount of bloodletting (and the Western Allies denied the Union the chance to get any of the historically Russian Empire land back). And then the said prospect of watching the other sides bleed each other dry. A very nice deal (later changed to let most of Finland in the German sphere, while giving Lithuania to the Union - the original pact gave Lithuania to Germany and Finland to the Union).
4. Also, the Red Army was in the process of reestructuring its command and modernizing (the first T-34s would only be delivered to service in mid-1940, for example). The process would take years to complete. Better wait until your Army is ready to fight a war before getting into one.
Conclusion: Deciding in 1939 to keep the country out of war and wait to make further gains was an excellent tactic by the Kremlin. Too bad nobody was expecting Blitzkrieg and the French falling as fast as they did. But, then again, History always looks different with a 20/20 hindsight.
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 14, 2014, 10:13:40 PM
[suffice to remember that in WWI Russia was part of the Allies and ended up ceding Finland, the Baltic States, western Belorussia, Bessarabia and part of the Caucasus],
Nobody's fault but their own.
How did "the Union" have so many "lost" territories?
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2014, 10:25:35 PM
How did "the Union" have so many "lost" territories?
Because the Western Powers didn't saw fit to allow the Union any seat at the peace treaties, given that the Union was socialist and they were not, thus not recognizing the government of the Union.
The Union's borders in 1939 were the result of bilateral treaties with the respective countries, often achieved after much bloodletting by the Red Army. And, in some cases like Poland and Finland, the enemies of the Union counted with the active help of the Western Powers (De Gaulle saw action with the Poles in the Ukraine, for example) or Germany.
And those same western powers then took the opportunity to isolate the Union in what they called a 'sanitary cordon' of buffer states, friendly to them.
Oh, and to sum what History books said:
- the Capitalists, as is usual in ther Imperialist world view, were about to, once again, go to war with each other. The Union took a chance in their war to liberate large parts of the former Russian Empire from the clutches of their reactionary western-puppet governments, and preventing them from being overrun by the Fascists.
But the war in the west ended fast, and in 1941 the Fascists launched a surprise attack on the peaceful Union, triggering the Great Patriotic War.
So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy? I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! :lol:
But thanks, Martim, for your post. I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.
Oh, and the poor "peaceful Union" that had just invaded every neighboring western country bar Turkey? Boo hoo for them.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:14:46 PM
So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy? I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! :lol:
But thanks, Martim, for your post. I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.
Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he
agreed with the Soviet view of history. The question was asked, and he answered.
It also helps that Poland as well as the Baltics didn't want to be allied with the Soviets regardless of what happened (I think the Poles wouldn't agree to Soviet deployments even in the event of a German invasion) and Britain and France didn't push the East Euros. I may be remembering wrongly--been about seven years since I studied the subject--but Soviet historians harp on this diplomatic isolation. The USSR had to take what it could get, which was the M-R Pact. But it's okay because everything worked out fine.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 01:03:51 AM
But it's okay because everything worked out fine.
:yeahright:
Well, until '91, when civilization fell.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2014, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:14:46 PM
So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy? I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! :lol:
But thanks, Martim, for your post. I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.
Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history. The question was asked, and he answered.
That is fair. The Soviets never fought on the same side as the Germans but insofar that they did, it was fully justified.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 01:03:51 AM
It also helps that Poland as well as the Baltics didn't want to be allied with the Soviets regardless of what happened (I think the Poles wouldn't agree to Soviet deployments even in the event of a German invasion) and Britain and France didn't push the East Euros. I may be remembering wrongly--been about seven years since I studied the subject--but Soviet historians harp on this diplomatic isolation. The USSR had to take what it could get, which was the M-R Pact. But it's okay because everything worked out fine.
The Poles didn't want Soviet troops in their territory in any way, shape, or form. The Poles may have actually been more anti-Soviet than Hitler was. In fact, during the Munich crisis, the Soviets were willing to intervene on the side of the Czechs, and the Romanians actually agreed to allow Soviet troops passage through their territory to Czechoslovakia, but the Poles threatened to intervene on the side of Germany and to invade Romania if that happened.
I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2014, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:14:46 PM
So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy? I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! :lol:
But thanks, Martim, for your post. I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.
Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history. The question was asked, and he answered.
And I thanked him for it. :cool:
Quote from: Solmyr on July 15, 2014, 06:07:34 AM
I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.
I was still a child when USSR fell, so I didn't get to learn the adult history of USSR from USSR. When I was about 10, the history curriculum changed rather abruptly from teaching about heroic Red Army fighting Banderovites to heroic Ukrainian resistance fighters ambushing and slaughtering Red Army units. From what I remember about USSR history from USSR, though, there was no such thing as an invasion following Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The territories just went and joined USSR. :hmm:
I have a German atlas from late 1939 that's a bit befuddled as to what to do with Poland. It still shows the borders, but the country has no label. I think their country blurb says something along the lines of internal struggles in Poland and aggression against Germans necessitated the Wehrmacht to step in, leading to the collapse of the state.
I need to check when I get home.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:14:46 PM
So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy? I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! :lol:
In Socialist ideology, there is Capitalism (a example of which is the Western Powers), and Capitalism in Decay (its most extreme form, which is Fascism). You may want to google it.
So no, from the Union's POV there is not much difference between the two: they're both evil (yes, one more than the other) but from Moscow's view in 1939 the Union (the only alliance of socialist states, plus Tannu Tuva) very much had to play its own agenda.
Quote from: Barrister
Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history. The question was asked, and he answered.
Indeed, one thing is what went in the History books, the other is reality (like the M-R Pact, which was not officially admitted). In fact, my explanations on the Pact were not part of any History book in the Union; I just added them for extra explanations.
Of course, state secrets are kept as such for many decades, and things that are not shiny are never taught to kids.
One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.
Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.
Quote from: dps
The Poles didn't want Soviet troops in their territory in any way, shape, or form. The Poles may have actually been more anti-Soviet than Hitler was. In fact, during the Munich crisis, the Soviets were willing to intervene on the side of the Czechs, and the Romanians actually agreed to allow Soviet troops passage through their territory to Czechoslovakia, but the Poles threatened to intervene on the side of Germany and to invade Romania if that happened.
Indeed, the Union was willing to take steps to prevent German expansion. But it became clear that not only the border states were all hostile to the Union, but also that the Western Powers would really not truly field their armies in such a circumstance. Something that played a large role in the 1939 calculations of what was being asked of the Union.
Quote from: Solmyr
I still have my old history atlases from the 80s, and while they don't go into extensive explanations, the maps show "Western Ukraine" and "Western Belarus" asking to join USSR in October 1939 and the border changing accordingly. No military movements are shown at all.
In what was Poland, not much was needed: only 18 polish battalions were there, and did not put up a real fight for obvious reasons. And most of the population there was non-polish anyway.
And apart from Finland - which was why it was renegotiated with Germany - either the areas were peacefully ceded (Bessarabia and North Bukovina) or they allowed for Union military bases and then asked for annexation. Guess you'd say under duress, but the Union sees it as reunion of natural lands that belonged to the country.
Quote from: DGuller
I was still a child when USSR fell, so I didn't get to learn the adult history of USSR from USSR. When I was about 10, the history curriculum changed rather abruptly from teaching about heroic Red Army fighting Banderovites to heroic Ukrainian resistance fighters ambushing and slaughtering Red Army units. From what I remember about USSR history from USSR, though, there was no such thing as an invasion following Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The territories just went and joined USSR.
You are very young... :ph34r:
And I wasn't aware of that change in the history curricula. Interesting. Though, to be fair (now), while Stepan Bandera is portrayed as a fascist that was duly destroyed by the Red Army, in fact he was more of a right-wing nationalist that fought both sides. Kind of an ideological nutter with a mean streak. Anyway, that made him a marked man for the Union and it's easier to present him as a mere fascist.
And yes, the Pact was not made public, same as any other big political secret.
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 15, 2014, 08:16:52 AM
One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.
Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.
I certainly learned all that in College. We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here? I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
You had to ask, didn't you?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
He is talking about the starving winter and all that. The camps where we 're-educated' the German POWs before releasing them back in the wild. Lots of Germans died in those early days of allied occupation. Mistakes were made (and not-so-mistakes the Germans were not exactly popular amongst the Allies in 1945).
If you read the true nutters on the internet about it they basically claim that Eisenhower committed genocide on the Germans. Because we were totally interested in killing every last German or something. Of course the silly part is back in the day the Soviets were howling mad that we went so easy on the Germans and this showed how we were really fascists after all. Now, it seems, we were brutal murderers who were fascists after all because we did NOT go easy on them. One way or the other we are fascists and murderers. Just get that part straight and you will be fine.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
He is talking about the starving winter and all that. The camps where we 're-educated' the German POWs before releasing them back in the wild. Lots of Germans died in those early days of allied occupation. Mistakes were made (and not-so-mistakes the Germans were not exactly popular amongst the Allies in 1945).
If you read the true nutters on the internet about it they basically claim that Eisenhower committed genocide on the Germans. Because we were totally interested in killing every last German or something. Of course the silly part is back in the day the Soviets were howling mad that we went so easy on the Germans and this showed how we were really fascists after all. Now, it seems, we were brutal murderers who were fascists after all because we did NOT go easy on them. One way or the other we are fascists and murderers. Just get that part straight and you will be fine.
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 08:22:41 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 15, 2014, 08:16:52 AM
One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.
Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.
I certainly learned all that in College. We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here? I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.
My school made it to Vietnam. :bowler:
Too bad they didn't leave you there.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2014, 10:45:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 08:22:41 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 15, 2014, 08:16:52 AM
One can see that in the Western history books about the post-war period in Germany, that just present the Western Allies as 'Liberators' and then nicely skip the events in Germany from mid-1945 to the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, so as not to mention what they did in the country in the meanwhile.
Not that the westerners deny it (the documentation is avaliable in sources and specialized books - just google The Patton Papers, After the Reich, the Monnet Plan, Adenauer's comments about the Saarland, etc), it's just not something taught nor mentioned in 'normal' books.
I certainly learned all that in College. We never made it to the aftermath of WWII in Grade School so...what is a 'normal' school here? I guess those Euro schools that actually teach a bit of modern history.
My school made it to Vietnam. :bowler:
My country didn't make it to Vietnam.
Thank you Harold Wilson. :bowler:
My American History class worked backwards, so we got to the Civil War.
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 15, 2014, 08:16:52 AM
Indeed, the Union was willing to take steps to prevent German expansion. But it became clear that not only the border states were all hostile to the Union, but also that the Western Powers would really not truly field their armies in such a circumstance. Something that played a large role in the 1939 calculations of what was being asked of the Union.
Yeah, I'm willing to give the Soviets their due there. They had tried to develop some kind of collective security with the West against the Nazis--propoganda and ideology aside, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets knew that Britian and France weren't any real threat to the Soviet state, but a re-armed, expanionistic Germany certainly was--but after Munich, that was judged to have failed. And it wasn't just the Soviets who came to that conclusion, several other states did so as well.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:12:55 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give the Soviets their due there. They had tried to develop some kind of collective security with the West against the Nazis--propoganda and ideology aside, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets knew that Britian and France weren't any real threat to the Soviet state, but a re-armed, expanionistic Germany certainly was--but after Munich, that was judged to have failed. And it wasn't just the Soviets who came to that conclusion, several other states did so as well.
Pity they were completely wrong...and decided to stay wrong even after the West did declare war. I still do not know why the next step was to order the Communist Party of France to undermine the Western War Effort.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2014, 10:56:11 AM
My country didn't make it to Vietnam.
Thank you Harold Wilson. :bowler:
ah-ha Mister Wilson... ah-ha Mister Heath...
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:12:55 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give the Soviets their due there. They had tried to develop some kind of collective security with the West against the Nazis--propoganda and ideology aside, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets knew that Britian and France weren't any real threat to the Soviet state, but a re-armed, expanionistic Germany certainly was--but after Munich, that was judged to have failed. And it wasn't just the Soviets who came to that conclusion, several other states did so as well.
Pity they were completely wrong...and decided to stay wrong even after the West did declare war. I still do not know why the next step was to order the Communist Party of France to undermine the Western War Effort.
I'm not 100% sure here, but I think Stalin probably thought that the British and French had a bit of superiority over Hitler's Germany (most observers in 1939 and early 1940 thought that) and, collective security with the West having failed, figured it was in the Soviet Union's interest for the conflict between the West and the Nazis to be a protracted, mutually destructive war of attrition.
And yes, with hindsight we know that he was wrong about that, too, but again, he wasn't the only one who was wrong about it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:12:55 AM
Yeah, I'm willing to give the Soviets their due there. They had tried to develop some kind of collective security with the West against the Nazis--propoganda and ideology aside, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets knew that Britian and France weren't any real threat to the Soviet state, but a re-armed, expanionistic Germany certainly was--but after Munich, that was judged to have failed. And it wasn't just the Soviets who came to that conclusion, several other states did so as well.
Pity they were completely wrong...and decided to stay wrong even after the West did declare war. I still do not know why the next step was to order the Communist Party of France to undermine the Western War Effort.
France and England were potential enemies during that whole Finland thing.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:32:25 AM
I'm not 100% sure here, but I think Stalin probably thought that the British and French had a bit of superiority over Hitler's Germany (most observers in 1939 and early 1940 thought that) and, collective security with the West having failed, figured it was in the Soviet Union's interest for the conflict between the West and the Nazis to be a protracted, mutually destructive war of attrition.
And yes, with hindsight we know that he was wrong about that, too, but again, he wasn't the only one who was wrong about it.
IIRC Hitler himself only hoped to gain a small chunk of France rather than conquer the whole thing.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 11:42:23 AM
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:32:25 AM
I'm not 100% sure here, but I think Stalin probably thought that the British and French had a bit of superiority over Hitler's Germany (most observers in 1939 and early 1940 thought that) and, collective security with the West having failed, figured it was in the Soviet Union's interest for the conflict between the West and the Nazis to be a protracted, mutually destructive war of attrition.
And yes, with hindsight we know that he was wrong about that, too, but again, he wasn't the only one who was wrong about it.
IIRC Hitler himself only hoped to gain a small chunk of France rather than conquer the whole thing.
It's like in EU, where you declare war on an enemy you expect to be tough, only to find it bankrupt and on nearly zero morale.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:32:25 AM
I'm not 100% sure here, but I think Stalin probably thought that the British and French had a bit of superiority over Hitler's Germany (most observers in 1939 and early 1940 thought that) and, collective security with the West having failed, figured it was in the Soviet Union's interest for the conflict between the West and the Nazis to be a protracted, mutually destructive war of attrition.
And yes, with hindsight we know that he was wrong about that, too, but again, he wasn't the only one who was wrong about it.
Which is a strange thing to do indeed if you do not regard the Western Allies as a threat at all but regard Germany as one.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 11:44:52 AM
It's like in EU, where you declare war on an enemy you expect to be tough, only to find it bankrupt and on nearly zero morale.
I don't know if that is true. The Germans gambled everything on a complete and fast victory. If that war had been protracted at all they would have been in big trouble. It seems weird they would have based their entire strategy on achieving the historical outcome if it was that far fetched. The French, for their part, were not that confident.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 11:49:10 AM
Which is a strange thing to do indeed if you do not regard the Western Allies as a threat at all but regard Germany as one.
As several (including Martim) have noted, Stalin, like everyone else, expected WW2 to continue where WW1 ended, with massive grinding battles of attrition. Stalin was desperate to believe that the West and Germany would wear themselves out in a years-long war, and he would be the only one standing at the end. And what Stalin desperately wanted to believe became the truth as far as the Soviet government and military were concerned. Stalin was so wedded to his delusions that, even when Germany defeated the West and re-deployed to attack the USSR, he forbade any defensive measures, for fear the Germans would misread them as offensive measures. German reconnaissance planes freely overflew the USSR in the days leading up to the German attack, pinpointing targets and allowing the devastating initial German attacks.
Hell, even after the Germans were over the border, Stalin insisted that the Soviets not shoot back, convinced that this was just a German provocation designed to give Hitler an excuse to renegotiate the Nazi-Soviet Pact if the Soviets fired on German troops. Stalin appears to have had a nervous breakdown when it became apparent that the attack was in earnest.
So, there are lots of goofy Soviet decisions that only make sense when you understand that the Soviet Union was completely under the control of a severely imbalanced character. The decision to back the Germans against the West is just one of a long string.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2014, 12:30:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 11:49:10 AM
Which is a strange thing to do indeed if you do not regard the Western Allies as a threat at all but regard Germany as one.
As several (including Martim) have noted, Stalin, like everyone else, expected WW2 to continue where WW1 ended, with massive grinding battles of attrition. Stalin was desperate to believe that the West and Germany would wear themselves out in a years-long war, and he would be the only one standing at the end. And what Stalin desperately wanted to believe became the truth as far as the Soviet government and military were concerned. Stalin was so wedded to his delusions that, even when Germany defeated the West and re-deployed to attack the USSR, he forbade any defensive measures, for fear the Germans would misread them as offensive measures. German reconnaissance planes freely overflew the USSR in the days leading up to the German attack, pinpointing targets and allowing the devastating initial German attacks.
Hell, even after the Germans were over the border, Stalin insisted that the Soviets not shoot back, convinced that this was just a German provocation designed to give Hitler an excuse to renegotiate the Nazi-Soviet Pact if the Soviets fired on German troops. Stalin appears to have had a nervous breakdown when it became apparent that the attack was in earnest.
So, there are lots of goofy Soviet decisions that only make sense when you understand that the Soviet Union was completely under the control of a severely imbalanced character. The decision to back the Germans against the West is just one of a long string.
Yes, it's quite ironic Stalin trusted Hitler of all people, given that he was famous for being totally paranoid and never trusted anyone else at all. I suspect the trust was out of weakness, as Hitler was someone totally beyond his control, and therefore wanted to placate him until Stalin was ready. Very typical of a controlling micro-manager who will blame anyone or anything that he can influence rather than himself or outside influences.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 11:56:33 AM
I don't know if that is true. The Germans gambled everything on a complete and fast victory. If that war had been protracted at all they would have been in big trouble. It seems weird they would have based their entire strategy on achieving the historical outcome if it was that far fetched. The French, for their part, were not that confident.
I can't remember where I read it, but it was a pretty authoritative source that said the results of the 1940 France campaign far exceeded Hitler's expectations. Yes, they shifted to a higher risk, higher reward strategy than what the original plan entailed but it didn't seem like Hitler expected them to even take Paris.
That said, I need to revisit that source & refresh my memory :)
Um their plan was to cut off and destroy half the French Army (along with the Dutch, Belgians, and the BEF). If this plan was achieved, and it was, what exactly did Hitler think the French were going to defend Paris with?
From what I've read Stalin seemed to regard Britain as the main enemy at the time, rather then Germany and was constantly paranoid that Britain was try to get Germany and the Soviet Union to go war. When Stalin cynically aligned himself the Nazis, he probably did more to help the Germans then any other country in Europe. For this, the people of the Soviet Union would pay terrible price.
I've always been under the impression that Hitler was pretty sure the French would just burn down Paris.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2014, 12:30:37 PM
So, there are lots of goofy Soviet decisions that only make sense when you understand that the Soviet Union was completely under the control of a severely imbalanced character. The decision to back the Germans against the West is just one of a long string.
This.
Stalin had a talent for factional infighting and the creative deployment of political terror. But as a strategist . . . he just wasn't very bright. He made bad decisions, lots of them. And the Soviet system didn't have much in the ways of checks.
What bailed him out was the fact that he was opposed by an egomaniac also operating in a system with limited checks and whose strategic acumen was dubious as well. Plus a lot of human beings to throw into the meat-grinders. Plus massive amounts of money, supplies and equipment from the West.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
Um their plan was to cut off and destroy half the French Army (along with the Dutch, Belgians, and the BEF). If this plan was achieved, and it was, what exactly did Hitler think the French were going to defend Paris with?
Hitler overestimated the French army. He actually lost his nerve a few times during Fall Gelb and issued orders to slow down. Also the operation as planned was a little less ambitious than what was actually executed by Rommel, Guderian, etc.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
Um their plan was to cut off and destroy half the French Army (along with the Dutch, Belgians, and the BEF). If this plan was achieved, and it was, what exactly did Hitler think the French were going to defend Paris with?
Hitler overestimated the French army. He actually lost his nerve a few times during Fall Gelb and issued orders to slow down. Also the operation as planned was a little less ambitious than what was actually executed by Rommel, Guderian, etc.
While things did not go exactly as planned, and Hitler did freak out at the speed of it fearing his troops would get overstretched, this was the plan as drawn up by Manstein and it did achieve the things it was designed to do.
The French Army might not have been as bad as the battle showed because its best units barely got to fight. The offensive was launched against second rank reserve formations, and Gamelin had already sent all his reserves into the low countries to be cut off.
If the Germans had just attacked head on it could have been tough going...or not. The big problem the French had, and the reason they lost their nerve in 1938, was the fact their air force was so subpar. Control of the skies along with armor in an era without effective anti-tank weaponry was a pretty big hurdle to overcome. Maybe they were screwed either way but we will never know. The German strategy was perfectly executed and the French Army had no chance after about ten days.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
While things did not go exactly as planned, and Hitler did freak out at the speed of it fearing his troops would get overstretched, this was the plan as drawn up by Manstein and it did achieve the things it was designed to do.
But Manstein's plan was not quite the final plan. The final plan was toned down a bit. Fortunately for the Germans, Guderian improvised the daring elements back into the actual execution, which apparently gave Hitler palpitations.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Acknowledge how? Anyway, we let way to many off the hook as it was. Peiper should have hung.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Acknowledge how? Anyway, we let way to many off the hook as it was. Peiper should have hung.
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
You can thank Joseph McCarthy.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Acknowledge how?
It'd be nice to figure out exactly what happened, i.e., how many German POWs died in Western Allied captivity. I know the claimed 1,000,000 figure is way overblown, but we do know some died from disease and/or malnutrition.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Acknowledge how? Anyway, we let way to many off the hook as it was. Peiper should have hung.
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Someone eventually took care of him.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 04:02:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Acknowledge how? Anyway, we let way to many off the hook as it was. Peiper should have hung.
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Someone eventually took care of him.
Leave it to the French to do the hard work. Shouldn't have taken 3 decades, though.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Acknowledge how?
It'd be nice to figure out exactly what happened, i.e., how many German POWs died in Western Allied captivity. I know the claimed 1,000,000 figure is way overblown, but we do know some died from disease and/or malnutrition.
I wasn't aware this number was kept secret.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Consistency was not really something we were awesome at after WWII. Like how Albert Speer got jail time while his immediate lieutenants got death.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 04:04:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 04:02:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 03:40:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
Oh, that. Yeah, well I think we ought to acknowledge what happened to German POWs shortly after the war. Obviously it wasn't as bad as what happened to Soviet-captured Germans, and wasn't quite as intentional.
I assumed he was talking about all of Germany (civilians, etc.).
Acknowledge how? Anyway, we let way to many off the hook as it was. Peiper should have hung.
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Someone eventually took care of him.
Leave it to the French to do the hard work. Shouldn't have taken 3 decades, though.
Wasn't it like a jealous husband, though, instead of retribution for war crimes? Or am I confusing him with another Nazi war criminal?
From what I remember, the crime was unsolved, so let's just pretend it was retribution to feel better.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Pieper was sentenced to death at his trial. The problem was that the testimony used to convict him was gained by illegal meqans, and he had several eyewitnesses (Americans who were treated properly by him) to set against the tainted affidavits. His execution was thus delayed, and when the shitstorm broke about the use of torture to get the affidavits, his sentence was commuted to life. Eventually, like most of the lifers, he was released. He served something like 12 years in prison, so it wasn't just "community service."
That said, he should probably have been executed, but its an imperfect world. He didn't "get away" with anything, he just benefited from some over-zealous prosecutors.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 04:40:25 PM
Wasn't it like a jealous husband, though, instead of retribution for war crimes? Or am I confusing him with another Nazi war criminal?
I think it is pretty commonly accepted that he was killed in retribution by French communists. IIRC, he had received death threats and he was armed and fired weapons in his own defense (in his house) when he was killed, so it wasn't like someone just stepped up behind him on the street and killed him, or shit him in a rit of fealous jage.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2014, 05:34:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 03:55:47 PM
That's something I don't get. The guy slaughters 100+ of your own soldiers after they surrendered, and he gets 15 minutes of community service? In a perverse way, I can understand Americans not taking crimes against Soviet POWs seriously, but you can't just forget the mass murder of your own.
Pieper was sentenced to death at his trial. The problem was that the testimony used to convict him was gained by illegal meqans, and he had several eyewitnesses (Americans who were treated properly by him) to set against the tainted affidavits. His execution was thus delayed, and when the shitstorm broke about the use of torture to get the affidavits, his sentence was commuted to life. Eventually, like most of the lifers, he was released. He served something like 12 years in prison, so it wasn't just "community service."
That said, he should probably have been executed, but its an imperfect world. He didn't "get away" with anything, he just benefited from some over-zealous prosecutors.
Ok, I may have exaggerated a little.
A lot of those SS guys got away with light sentences.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 06:37:16 PM
A lot of those SS guys got away with light sentences.
Otto Skorenzy. :wub:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 15, 2014, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 06:37:16 PM
A lot of those SS guys got away with light sentences.
Otto Skorenzy. :wub:
Was he one of your socks? :P
No.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
The French tried to annex Saarland. Even FIFA was involved, with its founder Jules Rimet pushing for FC Saarbrück in the French league.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2014, 03:55:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
The French tried to annex Saarland. Even FIFA was involved, with its founder Jules Rimet pushing for FC Saarbrück in the French league.
Well, trying is much worse than actually taking chunks out of other countries.
Quote from: frunk on July 16, 2014, 07:33:18 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2014, 03:55:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
The French tried to annex Saarland. Even FIFA was involved, with its founder Jules Rimet pushing for FC Saarbrück in the French league.
Well, trying is much worse than actually taking chunks out of other countries.
the intention is the same, it's only the outcome that's different. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2014, 03:55:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
The French tried to annex Saarland. Even FIFA was involved, with its founder Jules Rimet pushing for FC Saarbrück in the French league.
They
tried to annex Saarland? When, and what stopped them? Sounds an awful lot like hyperbole. If you are referring to the French attempts (and even a treaty with Germany) to make the Saar independent, that was defeated by a vote of the people of the Saar. If the people are allowed the decisive vote, that's not anything like what happened in, say, Silesia.
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2014, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2014, 03:55:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 09:22:14 AM
So what terrible things did the Western Allies do between 1945 & 1948? And whatever those things were, how do they compare with Soviet soldiers' behavior in occupied Germany during that timeframe?
The French tried to annex Saarland. Even FIFA was involved, with its founder Jules Rimet pushing for FC Saarbrück in the French league.
They tried to annex Saarland? When, and what stopped them? Sounds an awful lot like hyperbole. If you are referring to the French attempts (and even a treaty with Germany) to make the Saar independent, that was defeated by a vote of the people of the Saar. If the people are allowed the decisive vote, that's not anything like what happened in, say, Silesia.
They annexed it in 1797-1814 indeed but that's outside of the scope of this discussion.
Martim referred to it in the Monnet Plan which was larger in scope and abandoned even earlier.
It was a French protectorate for a while, and back then when coal actually mattered, the French kept special rights till 1981.
Hyperbole is not mine, it's Adenauer's
QuoteDer Name ,Protektorat' wäre vielleicht noch zu gut. Man könnte eher von einer ,Kolonie' sprechen – doch das werde ich nicht tun »
Protectorate was too kind of a word, colony would be better but I won't say it.
As for the FIFA part, it's true as well but it was more in jest.
The Saarfranzosen (SaarFrench) is still somewhat used for the Saar people by people from inner Germany. Dialect is heavily influenced by French also, as in Aachen. Classic border area phenomenon.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
Which part? The annexation, the sale or the ludicrous annexation plans?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2014, 09:42:04 AM
Martim referred to it in the Monnet Plan which was larger in scope and abandoned even earlier.
So that wasn't an attempt to annex the Saarland, it was an abandoned concept.
QuoteIt was a French protectorate for a while, and back then when coal actually mattered, the French kept special rights till 1981.
Yes, it was a special protectorate. That's not annexation.
Quote
Hyperbole is not mine, it's Adenauer's QuoteDer Name ,Protektorat' wäre vielleicht noch zu gut. Man könnte eher von einer ,Kolonie' sprechen – doch das werde ich nicht tun »
Protectorate was too kind of a word, colony would be better but I won't say it.
No annexation there, either. The hyperbole is yours.
Quote from: Maladict on July 16, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
Which part? The annexation, the sale or the ludicrous annexation plans?
The sale. Since when have the Dutch ever been motivated by money?
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
The Dutch government was run by utter bastards after the war. Anti-Nazi German refugees who fled to the Netherlands before the war (many of them Jewish) were deported just so the Dutch government could look ruthless to its people (note: they didn't deport all German nationals, because they didn't give a shit about German nationals, except as a means of doing something despicable).
The Dutch government wanted vast reparations, but the Allies wouldn't let them claim reparations in the immediate aftermath of the war (the Germans simply couldn't pay them), so the Dutch essentially took hostages. They released the hostages when the ransom was paid. To be fair to them, they took the hostages before they knew that the post-war German government would be willing to pay reparations (or that the Marshall Plan was forthcoming), and the Dutch certainly needed the money; the Nazis fucked up the Netherlands good and proper, and the Dutch wanted to be able to fight the colonial independence movements.
Quote from: Maladict on July 16, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
Which part? The annexation, the sale or the ludicrous annexation plans?
Annexation and the ambitious plans. I mean, it wasn't worse than what other countries were doing. The annexation of Silesia, Pommerania & East Prussia were far worse. It's just that it seems out of character for the relatively meek and polite Dutch.
Quote from: Valmy
I leared about that in College
Valmy, the statements of the other forumnites show that many (especially Americans) really don't have a clue on what happened between 1945 and 1948, or at best partial knowledge. One has to actively search to know it.
For that matter you yourself speak of the hunger winter. You may want to add an 's' to that last word. The Allies were unable to provide proper food to Germans for three years, during which the country suffered appalling famine.
This is the report given to President Truman on February 1947 (the second winter of hunger). It detalis the conditions of food in Germany (best calory intake was about 1,550 a day, half the normal for peacetime) and warns of serious starvation levels on German children:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=7&documentdate=1947-02-26&documentid=5166 (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=7&documentdate=1947-02-26&documentid=5166)
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
No small part. It was called the Bakker-Schut Plan (google it), and it intended to annex German land all the way to (including), Köln, Aachen, Münster and Osnabrück, expelling millions of Germans from the area in the process, except those that spoke a dialect similar to Dutch. Queen Wilhelmina was quite intent on it.
Their ideas were eventually quashed in 1947, when the US basically told them to stuff it. That said, they had more plans of annexation (ever less ambitious and always refused), and eventually settled on a small readjustment of the borders that had them gain 69km2 (27 sq, miles) of ground from Germany.
In 1963, the West German government bought the territory back from the Netherlands by paying then 280 million marks (a few billion euros at today's rate).
The Saarland was far more complex. You can look more about the Saar Protectorate on the internet.
Basically, the French wanted to add it to their sphere for future annexation, so they did their best to keep it away from Germany, denying refugees the right to settle there (and even making the region send its own team to the 1952 olympics). After a time with its own saar currency, by 1954 only the French Franc circulated there. Any party that defended integration with Germany was banned.
(Also goggle for 'Mouvement pour le rattachement de la Sarre a la France' - Movement for the rejoining of the Saar to France).
Also in '54, Paris allowed for a referendum on the independence of the territory, which was soundly defeated. Eventually in 1956 the French allowed the Saar to join West Germany if it wanted, but only after reserving for itself vast economic advantages, like low freight costs on the Moselle river and the coal rights until 1981. And despite the Saar being united with Germany in 1957, the Franc was legal tender there until 1959, year which is known in Germany as the 'Kleine Wiedervereinigung '(Small Reunification).
Of course, one also has to consider many other things that happened in the Allied zones. I don't have time now for it all (and it would also create an horrid wall of text).
For now, let's start with the 'not-so-bad' things, like the looting. While I admit that the Union troops did a lot of it, the Allied soldiers were also keen on stealing what they could.
I'll give the word to an US captain, called John F. Kennedy, which visited Germany at the time. Heard he had an unfortunate political career after the war, too:
http://books.google.pt/books?id=YZG-xmo4ZUkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0895264595&hl=en&sa=X&ei=owDHU-TGBqrD0QXolIHQDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.pt/books?id=YZG-xmo4ZUkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0895264595&hl=en&sa=X&ei=owDHU-TGBqrD0QXolIHQDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Quote from: JFK
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.
He also notes of the US troops:
Quote from: JFK
Americans looted the town heavily on arrival (...) the Germans' diet is about 1,200 calories -- ours being 4,000.
Of course, another of the favourite hobbies of the GIs was to force at gunpoint the German civilians to go to their banks, open their private vaults with their savings, and take everything for them (I think even the History Channel did an episode on this).
http://wih.sagepub.com/content/21/1/33.abstract
Doesn't sound quite as rapey as the Bolshevist hordes' behavior.
How many Germans died of famine in the Western allied zones of occupation to starvation in 1947? How many died of starvation in the Soviet sphere of influence that year?
:hmm: Are we sure that Martim is not Lucianus?
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 06:30:55 PM
Doesn't sound quite as rapey as the Bolshevist hordes' behavior.
Well our men were not openly encouraged to do it.
There was a lot of looting God knows. This was World War II everybody was pretty brutalized and out of their skulls by 1945.
QuoteValmy, the statements of the other forumnites show that many (especially Americans) really don't have a clue on what happened between 1945 and 1948, or at best partial knowledge. One has to actively search to know it.
Of course somebody has to search for it to get the details. I mean I have seen the looting and the hardships of the Germans under occupation been mentioned on openly on History Channel Documentaries and it is in history books dealing with the aftermath. It is not like the details of Reconstruction are common knowledge either even though it gets covered. Complicated messy bits of history do not sink in well.
If anyone is looking for a book that covers this period, I recommend "Candy Bombers," about the occupation in general and the Berlin airlift in particular.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 07:05:11 PM
:hmm: Are we sure that Martim is not Lucianus?
I thought it was commonly accepted that he was.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 06:30:55 PM
Doesn't sound quite as rapey as the Bolshevist hordes' behavior.
Payback's a motherfucker.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 04:21:53 PM
Quote from: Maladict on July 16, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2014, 09:23:47 AM
Didn't the Dutch annex a small part of Germany and then sell it back? IIRC they wanted to annex a bigger chunk than what they got.
Seems very un-Dutchlike.
Which part? The annexation, the sale or the ludicrous annexation plans?
Annexation and the ambitious plans. I mean, it wasn't worse than what other countries were doing. The annexation of Silesia, Pommerania & East Prussia were far worse. It's just that it seems out of character for the relatively meek and polite Dutch.
It's out of character in that the western allies generally refrained from making territorial demands.
There was no justification for these claims other than revenge, the queen pretty much badgered the government into it.
The Dutch seem to have collectively lost their mind between 1945 and 1950.