A stupid discussion by stupid people

Status
Not open for further replies.

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "
 
well the truth is, that the americans joined WWII pretty late, meanwhile france was partly occupied by the nazis, the british were pretty banged up (airforce) and russia suffered of a lot of casualties.

the americans took a big part in ending the war, but the real work was done by russia.
 
Most of what the US did for the liberation of the Netherlands/Holland, was actually reinforcing the UK with material and men, and ofcourse, there was the "accidental bombing" of my(and others) hometown; http://www.stevenroyedwards.com/bombingofnijmegen.html
that -might- be one of the frustrations he/she got when hearing about the glorious america, but I would not think that way, since:
- In any war people make mistakes
- Innocent people also die in wars
- Without the aid of the US challenging the western front, the war could have lasted a lot longer.
- Everybody's grandpa was a either a highly decorated soldier or resistance hero in the war.
- It was a long time ago, and nobody in that room with you was directly involved

And also, since the US make about 90% of all WW2 movies, they always place themselves as the heroes. But that's just normal, would you make a movie where your people where the bad guys in?
 
It is not my intention to offend anyone or defend the Nazis. They were and are still very bad. But in my opinion, there are/were no good guys in wars, especially in WW2. Only bad guys. I mean, the Nazis killed millions of innocent civillians. But so did the Soviets (deportation of German-Russians, GULACS), the Japanese (as far as I know) and even the British and Americans (Hiroshima and Nagasaki (USA only) and the destruction of many german cities like Berlin and Osnabrueck (the austrian ones weren't that damaged)).

And there's something which many people aren't aware of: Not all Nazis were germans. There were many austrian Nazis, too and I heard that they were worse than the german ones. And at least half of Hitler's staff were austrian, including Hitler himself.

And do you know what disturbs me? On Youtube and some other sites, some users start insulting all germans as Nazis and start discussions about them, only because an upload (like a video) is a german one. So please let me get this straight: Most Germans and Austrians aren't Nazis. They even despise Nazis. In Germany and Austria, there is the so-called "Wiederbetaetigungsgesetz" ("Revival law" or sth like that). In other words, (Neo-)Nazis can get punished. Same for the ones who quote/scream Nazi-Paroles, even if was just supposed to be funny. (And I don't think it is funny)

There are even Street Demonstrations against Nazis sometimes.
Here's some footage from the Demo "Keine Stimme den Nazis" ("No Votes for the Nazis") in Wismar from the 12th August 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PG3JOJYSg8

I'm glad that most of us didn't have to witness this horrible war. Let's hope that this won't be repeated and that we won't have another war. Because if a WWIII breaks out: God help us all.
And may all dead victims of that horrible war rest in peace and may they never be forgotten.
 
Same for the ones who quote/scream Nazi-Paroles, even if was just supposed to be funny. (And I don't think it is funny)

There are even Street Demonstrations against Nazis sometimes.
Here's some footage from the Demo "Keine Stimme den Nazis" ("No Votes for the Nazis") in Wismar from the 12th August 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PG3JOJYSg8

From heritage I'm half German, quarter Danish, Quarter Dutch. In most european countries we ridicule Nazi's as stupid, as in the persons. Nazism is no joke because the horrid things it caused. British comedies mock nazi's in just about every way over the years. And here when you have a loudmouthing, bad boss or manager , it's pretty common when he walks off to look you co-workers in the eye, click your heels together, raise your right hand, and "march" back to your working space. AFAIK swastika's, hitler-salutes, or the "sieg-heil" pronouncation is forbidden in germany, as until recently the reprints of Hitler's book.

Nazism was a cult, just like the Taliban is, not a race or habitants of a specific country. There are Nazi worshippers all over the world, still, most of those people are retarded and just hate foreigners. Antifacistic groups are also stupid, and at least as dangerous.

Also banning people access to the history of the history of Nazism and WW2 is wrong, people then would then forget the how, why, and it's consequences, and the phrase "Nie wieder" might also be forgotten.

In my country we still hold 2 minutes silence for the war victims on the 4th of may, and celebrate our liberation on the 5th. And that brings me to a joke we usually tend to make when a german hangs around a concert and asks why we hold silence throughout the entire hall:
German: Why is everybody so silent?
We: To remember those who faught and died in the war, our people, the British, the Americans, the French...
German: What about the Germans?
We: We celebrate that tomorrow! :D
 
And do you know what disturbs me? On Youtube and some other sites, some users start insulting all germans as Nazis and start discussions about them, only because an upload (like a video) is a german one.

They're either idiots or less than clever trolls... don't worry about it.
 
It is not my intention to offend anyone or defend the Nazis. They were and are still very bad. But in my opinion, there are/were no good guys in wars, especially in WW2.

There is no denying that every side committed unnecessary acts against one another, though what made this war different was also what was done in the aftermath. Typically, when an opposing nation is beaten and/or conquered, the winning nation plunders or demands significant monetary assets and leaves their opponent with nothing. While normally it leads to a significant period of rebuilding and economic hardship, it can also open the doorway for unintended consequences such as the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Not to say that every German was "evil", as most were just serving their country as any one else would, the few gave the whole a terrible image. Not to praise what we did, the Marshall Plan was a significant change in foreign policy. No longer was a country just beaten or liberated, they were offered a way of speedy recovery. Hell, we even offered it to the Soviets and they turned it down. I've traveled to numerous European countries, its no surprise we (Americans) get derided so much as I've seen the stupid things we say to others in their country. A better scene I witnessed was while I was in France and an American uttered the sentence, "Seeings though we freed you and blah blah blah....". I laughed my ass off when the waiter "dropped" the drink order in the dudes lap :D.
 
"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

[Emphasis added]

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.

I mean, the Nazis killed millions of innocent civillians. But so did the Soviets (deportation of German-Russians, GULACS), the Japanese (as far as I know) and even the British and Americans (Hiroshima and Nagasaki (USA only) and the destruction of many german cities like Berlin and Osnabrueck (the austrian ones weren't that damaged)).

There's a subtle, yet authentically large difference between systematic extermination and trying to cripple a fanatical enemy. You really fouled up in trying to make a link.

If you wanted to make a stellar argument you'd have cited the Japanese-American Internment Camps, which were a couple gas chambers and a Siberian railway project away from making us bad guys. Boy... we barely dodged that bullet, didn't we?

I do need to point out that America was exceptionally isolationist in the 1930's. We did not give a rip about what was going on in the rest of the world, and rightly so... the great depression made domestic survival foremost. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor and had Britain not demanded help in Africa and Europe in exchange for help in the Pacific, do you really think the USA would have done more than sold a few rusted out WW1 relics? I don't.

What a difference a day makes.
 
[Emphasis added]

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.

If you actually knew anything about Poland, you'd know that they provided the British with an Enigma machine and the codes, preventing the loss of the Battle of the Atlantic. Also, nearly a quarter million Polish troops served just with the British after the fall of Poland. How funny you're the poster boy of your own sentence.
 
Also, nearly a quarter million Polish troops served just with the British after the fall of Poland.

A Polish man in a British uniform is a British soldier. So is an American in a British uniform. Meanwhile an American in a German uniform is a German soldier, and a Frenchman in a Free French Forces uniform...

And the whole argument becomes particularly odd doesn't it? Event at a commitment of a quarter million (most completely under British command), does that contribution somehow eclipse American involvement to non-existence? And where's the Soviets, Australians, New Zealanders, French, and everyone else I'm forgetting?
 
Point and case being, we're not the only ones who fought and others deserve more credit than the media and you would give them for that matter.

And my mistake, they were under British command but were still the Polish Army.
 
Which is precisely where the student mentioned in the original post is being damn silly. American tourists who learn everything about the world from Fox News go over and crap all over Europeans like they personally stormed Berlin and killed Hitler. Okay. So the rational response is to... be just as asinine and act like the American contribution was inconsequential?

Why not just say the Soviets did all the work and the rest of the Allies were just freeloading? Just think of the wonderful casualty pie-charts and industrial mass-production figures one could whip out for that one.
 
We didnt start the fight, but we sure did HELP finish it. Unlike Hollywood and our own ignorance would suggest, it took a team effort of multiple nations to end Fascism and Imperial expansion.
 
While true that the US contribution to the war effort in Europe was somewhat limited as far as personnel participation until late in the war, they did supply a lot of the materials needed to carry out the war, and I don't mean those WW1 destroyers given to the UK. It was US hulls mounting British sonar that pretty much crippled the U-boat fleet's ability to seriously impair shipping from the US, after some serious fumbles earlier in the war (Adm. King not ordering convoying, PQ17, and assorted others).

Oh, and t.c.cgi? The Soviets did claim that they won the war, and the other allies were just figuratively holding their coats. No mention was ever made of the war materiel shipped to them from the US via the "Murmansk run", including 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots, as that would undermine Soviet propaganda.
 
Without US support, the UK might have fallen, I would have the "Panzerlied" on my alarmclock, and wing commander 1 would have been patched for europe so that Blair would have blond hair.
 
Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "
I think you have to take this statement in context. Modern Europe is very, very strongly anti-American. I don't want to get into the discussion of why this is the case - it's a weird and unfortunate state where Europeans blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes. But, regardless of the causes, you have to take this onboard any time you discuss WWII with Europeans - even those who have a good knowledge of WWII history may try to disparage America's involvement, while those whose knowledge is weaker will not even realise that they're disparaging America's involvement - they'll think they're simply stating the truth.

In this particular case, you also have to add the fact that this person you were talking to seemed totally unaware of the existence of a world outside of the Netherlands. Presumably, for him/her, German troops were something that one day appeared out of nowhere - and then, five years later, just as suddenly, the liberating armies appeared out of nowhere and killed all the Germans. The fact that it took five years of war to reach the point where German troops could be kicked out of the Netherlands - that's obviously beyond them. The fact that, even if it was British, Canadian and Polish troops that directly liberated them, it was American troops and equipment that let them reach this point - that's obviously beyond them too.

(of course, I seem to recall that American troops did indeed play a significant role in liberating the Netherlands, so this person was totally wrong in any case - but all things considered, that's a small detail :) )

Poland?! Seriously? What a laugh. I know they had a resistance movement and all, but last I checked they were gobbled up by the Soviets straight away. Out of the pot and into the fire isn't the situation I'd call liberation. I'll make a graceful assumption here and guess she meant France.

It's just proof that idiots that don't know what they're talking about come from every nation. Smile, nod, and move along.
Well, you do seem to confirm the validity of that second paragraph :). So, I'll smile, nod - but I won't move along without explaining a few things.

What this person meant, evidently, was who actually liberated the Netherlands - not who won the war, but who marched into the Netherlands. Poland did indeed contribute significantly to this operation - not only were there Polish paratroopers involved in Operation Marketgarden, but also, the next year, Polish ground troops were involved in the subsequent operations.

Now, I'll certainly agree with you that the Polish contribution to the Allied war effort wasn't quite in the top league. It was the British, Americans, Russians, Canadians and Australians (more or less in that order) most of all - but I think a very strong case could be made that Poland's contribution to victory was greater than, say, France. We had a resistance movement that, at its peak, had around a million active troops, who played a significant role in disrupting supplies on the eastern front, delivering intel information to the Allies, and so on. At all times throughout the war, the Germans had to keep about half a million troops in Poland - these were troops that could have made quite a difference elsewhere. Heck, in August 1944, during the Warsaw Uprising, for a few weeks the German casualties in Warsaw alone were higher than the total casualties from the entire western front. Apart from that, we had our army in the west (as has been mentioned, about a quarter of a million troops), with its own tank divisions, its own small fleet (destroyers, submarines, even a light cruiser), and its own air force (the top-scoring squadron during the Battle of Britain, No. 303, was Polish - this one squadron accounted for about 5% of all kills during the battle, and it certainly wasn't the only Polish fighter squadron). Polish ground troops fought in France, Africa, Italy, then France again, and finally in Germany. Then there was the Polish army under communist control, on the eastern front - I believe there was at least half a million Polish troops there, possibly up to a million. And yes, they also were not Russian soldiers - they too, fought under their own flag, even if (obviously) under tight Soviet control. The Polish army in the east, it goes without saying, also had its own tanks and air force - no navy, though. All in all, I think this photo of the Polish flag on the ruins of Berlin says all there is to say about Poland's supposed lack of contribution to victory in WWII :).
 
Presumably, for him/her, German troops were something that one day appeared out of nowhere - and then, five years later, just as suddenly, the liberating armies appeared out of nowhere and killed all the Germans..

On the first part you are completely correct, the germans literally walked across the border unannounced into the streets of the cities near the border at 4 in the morning, and had taken about half the country before mobilisation started, and only a few strongholds held the germans back until our royal family escaped to england and officially surrendered.

During the liberation of the netherlands a lot more damage was done, and in the aftermath of the war everyone here was poor, their homes in ruins, their goods confiscated by the germans to support the war.... The local girls who had fallen in love with german soldiers got their heads shaved and were chased out of their villages... liberation did cost the dutch a lot more then the german occupation in the end.

Of yes, Germans: Ich will mein Fahrrad zurück! ;)
 
Ok firstly let me apologize if ANYONE finds this offensive. Believe me that is not my intent. I was involved in a debate about World War 2 not too long ago and this student from Holland had thier own... rather radical view that seems to be shared by many Europeans. Well given that we've had such great discussions about WW2 here in the past, I'd like to get everyone's reaction to the following statement:

"So funny Americans always start with 'if my grandfather blah blah blah' Well let me tell you, watch A bridge too far' and then think again. YOUR grandfathers probably took that wrong bridge also. In the mean time Poland and the British and Canadians freed us. NOT the Americans. "

As somebody whose grandfathers fought for the other side and actually were shot at by American soldiers I still have to say some thing to those guys that boarded ships to fight a war on the other side of the big pond. Thank you, thank you very much. Not only did you get rid of a regime that had moraly corrupted many of the people back then and supressed or killed the rest, but you also were ready to stay after that deed was accomplished and sat it out in my homecountry until a solution with the Sovjets could be reached that reestablished it as a undivided sovereign state. And on top of that you poured billions worth of todays money into our economic recovery. So thanks to all those US politicians who made the decissions in the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower governments and thanks to those brave men who commited their health and their lives to free a continent that had fucked up itself.
 
So thanks to all those US politicians who made the decissions in the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower governments and thanks to those brave men who commited their health and their lives to free a continent that had fucked up itself.
As a German, you go too far with that "continent that fucked up itself" bit. Be responsible - by saying that the continent as a whole was responsible for its plight, you suggest that we forced you to attack :).

On the first part you are completely correct, the germans literally walked across the border unannounced into the streets of the cities near the border at 4 in the morning, and had taken about half the country before mobilisation started, and only a few strongholds held the germans back until our royal family escaped to england and officially surrendered.
That's rather selling yourself short - the Netherlands, all things considered, put up an amazingly hard fight, even inflicting some local defeats on the Germans. It took five days of fighting before you surrendered - and even then, Germany had to break the rules of civilised warfare by bombing Rotterdam (24,000 houses destroyed!) and threatening to destroy other cities. I don't know what they teach you at school, but this defensive effort certainly wasn't supposed to merely hold the Germans back until the Queen could escape - the fact is, she didn't leave until day four of the battle, and even then, she had been meant to only evacuate to Zeeland. The decision to head for the UK was only made when it turned out a voyage to Zeeland would be too risky because the area had been mined. And, most importantly, at the end of the battle, your government still refused to surrender - the only surrender the Germans got in the Netherlands was from the troops actually in the country (and even then, Zealand was exempted - it only fell a few days later). If only the French had half the courage the Dutch showed, Germany could have been defeated much, much sooner. WWII is a time the Dutch can be hugely proud of - and should draw lessons from it for the present.
 
As a German, you go too far with that "continent that fucked up itself" bit. Be responsible - by saying that the continent as a whole was responsible for its plight, you suggest that we forced you to attack .

Firstly I am not German. Secondly Id root the reasons for why the continent went down the drain far earlier than the 1930ties. Germany has its very own road in this direction, and clearly holds its very big share of responsibility for what happened and for what part of its population did during WW2. But the development in Germany is not disconnected from the development of ideas, thoughts and political developments in the rest of the continent. There definitly are differences in the development in Germany and other nations that lead to different outcomes, in the German case allowed the rise of Nazism, but there are common roots to them. So when I say the continent fucked itself up, I am not singling out WW2 and its effects but the way European nationalism and the mix of parts of modern thought and long kept prejudice set the stage for the atrocities of WW2 to happen.

And at least for Western Europe (which included most of Germany past 1949) the US involvement was a necessary precondidtion to root out some of these underlying problems. Without US pressure there probably wouldnt have been a reconciliation in the form of the European project we partake even today.

If only the French had half the courage the Dutch showed, Germany could have been defeated much, much sooner.

I realy doubt it was a lack of courage that caused the French defeat and the protraction of the war, but a fatal combination of wrong perception of the capabilities of the German Wehrmacht at the onset of the war in 1939 and outdated doctrines on the French part. Partly they probably were baffled by the success in the Polish campaign partly they were probably underestimating the Wehrmacht in their capabilities to perform a mechanized assault the way they did. And from what they knew in late 1939 and early 1940 a waiting stance to reinforce their positions and gear up their industries for a full scale war was probably the "right" decission to take. I doubt the average French soldier was that much less courageous than the average German or Dutch soldier, but he was thrust in a situation where fighting on seized to be a possibility after a certain point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top