Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.

I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.

I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.

Phosphor bombing, planning on using milzbrand, massed bombing of civilian targets, starvation of colonies, first Implementation of concentration camps boer war, Burning down towns also in the boer war, flying the wrong flag, "London cage" nice name for a torturing institution btw, rape, implementing also unrestricted submarine warfare, blockades, etc.
Do i need to go on?

Don't get me wrong the ideology and the consequently applied form of it give especially the Nazis and the Japanese crimes a rather specific charachter but basically doing the same questionable things whilest not actually beeing part of the ideology make it atleast questionable on a standpoint that you put yourself on.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.

I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.

Phosphor bombing, planning on using milzbrand, massed bombing of civilian targets, starvation of colonies, first Implementation of concentration camps boer war, Burning down towns also in the boer war, flying the wrong flag, "London cage" nice name for a torturing institution btw, rape, implementing also unrestricted submarine warfare, blockades, etc.
Do i need to go on?

Don't get me wrong the ideology and the consequently applied form of it give especially the Nazis and the Japanese crimes a rather specific charachter but basically doing the same questionable things whilest not actually beeing part of the ideology make it atleast questionable on a standpoint that you put yourself on.

'Planning on'

But they didn't.

'Massed bombing of civilian targets'

Universal strategy

I have no intent to deny the others - but the initial discussion was regarding WW2.

The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.

Literally every major state bar what, France? engaged in strategic bombing - Germany starting the practice.

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.

Literally every major state bar what, France? engaged in strategic bombing - Germany starting the practice.

UdSSR also not and China, but that later one has more to do with the lack of industry.

The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.

Chill guys. there's no reason debate cant be civil. even debate thats gone a little off topic... I think its fair to say that in conflict situations throughout history, people have done awful things. I'm under no illusions about the British empire. One could argue that it was just the way of things back then, without trying to be dismissive of course.

I personally believe the difference between those specific circumstances in the early 20th century, those of the Nazis and the various Japanese specialist units like 731, was the fact that those were officially sanctioned by governments. There's a difference between opportunistic war crimes, and military units created with government permission to perform unspeakable acts of barbaric torture and 'experiments' on civillians.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Chill guys. there's no reason debate cant be civil. even debate thats gone a little off topic... I think its fair to say that in conflict situations throughout history, people have done awful things. I'm under no illusions about the British empire. One could argue that it was just the way of things back then, without trying to be dismissive of course.

I personally believe the difference between those specific circumstances in the early 20th century, those of the Nazis and the various Japanese specialist units like 731, was the fact that those were officially sanctioned by governments. There's a difference between opportunistic war crimes, and military units created with government permission to perform unspeakable acts of barbaric torture and 'experiments' on civillians.

I reread my coments and you can indeed interpret them as cross, that said, this was not my intention, my point was more to basically state don't claim a morale high horse else you might get pulled down from it and found gulty inadvertadly of hypocrisy.

Whilest the Crimes due to ideological reasons indeed show a quality due to the very bureaucratic nature only Size alone is diffrent.
Especially the "london cage" puts a dent in your defense, because there was even zilch reason to even do something like that for your government and it was even condoned from higher ups.

What personally does shock me more on the Nazi crimes (or the japanese ones) was the seamless integration of the state aparatus with its formerly prussian/ authoritharian style officials, basically the authoritharian structure does just adapt to the ideology in charge, which shows a very eerily disgusting nature of a state apparatus and it's cogs so to speak. Considering that for the scale these powers willingly enforced their ideologies they needed the complete coordniation with the officals it goes to show how fast these got indoctrinated.

the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.

That comparison is bogus. Was the London cage business a war crime? Yes, almost certainly. Was it even remotely in the same ballpark as Auschwitz?

I have absolutely no issue with the Allies claiming the moral high ground. It's completely possible to do awful things and still be far, far better than the opposition. That does not make the Allied atrocities OK, but Jesus man, get some perspective. There just are no Allied extermination camps, no rape contests reported in national newspapers and no friendly rivalry between American officers to see who could decapitate 100 Japanese civilians the fastest. It's absolutely not just a difference in degree.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.

Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That comparison is bogus. Was the London cage business a war crime? Yes, almost certainly. Was it even remotely in the same ballpark as Auschwitz?

I have absolutely no issue with the Allies claiming the moral high ground. It's completely possible to do awful things and still be far, far better than the opposition. That does not make the Allied atrocities OK, but Jesus man, get some perspective. There just are no Allied extermination camps, no rape contests reported in national newspapers and no friendly rivalry between American officers to see who could decapitate 100 Japanese civilians the fastest. It's absolutely not just a difference in degree.

I once again will point at the boer war.
Enough said.

The only real difference was the ammount which by far is outweighed by nazi germany and Japan, aswell as the UdSSR.

Also unlike in Japan and nazi germany alot of the British personell there got Flak for their behaviour.

But it still is questionable to run in essence a Gestapo prison as a democracy.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.

Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.

Splitting hairs. Its still a military intelligence thing, Not camps for civillians.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.

Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.

Splitting hairs. Its still a military intelligence thing, Not camps for civillians.

Boer war, also the leader of it was allready active during WW1.

Pow also have rights btw. And imprisoning allied personell is a great move really.

Btw police is not civilian now?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.

The Dresden bombing raid was a case of a normal bombing raid that went horribly right. The war was still ongoing, Dresden was a tertiary production center overlooked up until then because other cities had greater production. Thus the city was largely unbombed and had intact wooden roofs. The RAF by then had a lot of experience of night bombing, cloud and wind conditions were optimal and as a result the firestorm was exceptionally effective. There was no difference between the Dresden raid or those on Hamburg or Berlin or the bombing campaigns going back to the Spanish Civil War.
As Harris quoted from Isaiah "They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind". Nothing had changed in how the air war was conducted.

You could critique the entire bombing campaign, but the reply to that is simply this: if German cities didn't want to be bombed, or trampled by Soviets they should have done their duty to the human race and stormed the Reichstag and removed the Nazis in chains.

The Allies wasn't a thing during the Boer war. A lot of things changed between 1902 and 1939; Britain didn't have death camps, Germany did. While Britain would later do some rather horrifying things (cf. the Mau-Mau uprising) they just didn't systematically chop off people's arms and reattach them on the wrong side or give prisoners infusions of cat blood just to see what would happen. British imperialism was callous; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were outright malicious. The Germans even consciously chose to call their camps "concentration camps" so that they could deflect criticism by pointing at the Boer war, but the British didn't set up crematoriums or gas chambers.

There is a whole world of difference between Boer prisoners dying from malnutrition and bad sanitation and the Germans gassing people; one is the result of the British not caring what happened to the Boer as long as they could end the war, the other is the Nazis fighting the war so they could put people in the camps and kill them. We differentiate between similar crimes through the presence or absence of intent all the time: murder is worse than manslaughter. Hence, active extermination is worse than indirect killing through neglect, even ignoring the almost four decades separating the Boer war and WW2.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.

The Dresden bombing raid was a case of a normal bombing raid that went horribly right. The war was still ongoing, Dresden was a tertiary production center overlooked up until then because other cities had greater production. Thus the city was largely unbombed and had intact wooden roofs. The RAF by then had a lot of experience of night bombing, cloud and wind conditions were optimal and as a result the firestorm was exceptionally effective. There was no difference between the Dresden raid or those on Hamburg or Berlin or the bombing campaigns going back to the Spanish Civil War.
As Harris quoted from Isaiah "They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind". Nothing had changed in how the air war was conducted.

You could critique the entire bombing campaign, but the reply to that is simply this: if German cities didn't want to be bombed, or trampled by Soviets they should have done their duty to the human race and stormed the Reichstag and removed the Nazis in chains.

That is the correct argument, however the state apparatus folded over to the nazis as soon as they came to power and with the state apparatus you have basically all you need to enforce your will on the people.

You want to know one of the biggest ironies, some of the most diehard SS members were people that had stuedied philosophy, history , germanistik (german language), law,etc. in many ways for them one of the reasons to join this is to thin out competition in their field of expertise.
F.e. Carl Schmitt is one such a career philosopher/ jurist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Allies wasn't a thing during the Boer war. A lot of things changed between 1902 and 1939; Britain didn't have death camps, Germany did. While Britain would later do some rather horrifying things (cf. the Mau-Mau uprising) they just didn't systematically chop off people's arms and reattach them on the wrong side or give prisoners infusions of cat blood just to see what would happen. British imperialism was callous; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were outright malicious. The Germans even consciously chose to call their camps "concentration camps" so that they could deflect criticism by pointing at the Boer war, but the British didn't set up crematoriums or gas chambers.

There is a whole world of difference between Boer prisoners dying from malnutrition and bad sanitation and the Germans gassing people; one is the result of the British not caring what happened to the Boer as long as they could end the war, the other is the Nazis fighting the war so they could put people in the camps and kill them. We differentiate between similar crimes through the presence or absence of intent all the time: murder is worse than manslaughter. Hence, active extermination is worse than indirect killing through neglect, even ignoring the almost four decades separating the Boer war and WW2.

120'000 farmers interned in the boer war, 26'000 dead.
Intent is the right word, however there is also rationale.
To say the killing was without intent in the boer war is wrong, the intent was to break the spirit of the guerrila. It was succsessfull but also shows the intent.

No doubt the continued 'hullabaloo' at the death-rate in these concentration camps, and Milner's belated agreement to take over their administration, helped change Kitchener's mind [some time at the end of 1901]. ... By mid-December at any rate, Kitchener was already circulating all column commanders with instructions not to bring in women and children when they cleared the country, but to leave them with the guerrillas. ... Viewed as a gesture to Liberals, on the eve of the new session of Parliament at Westminster, it was a shrewd political move. It also made excellent military sense, as it greatly handicapped the guerrillas, now that the drives were in full swing. ... It was effective precisely because, contrary to the Liberals' convictions, it was less humane than bringing them into camps, though this was of no great concern to Kitchener.

See pakenham Thomas: pp. 461–572.

Now we come to the motive and this is were i aree with you:
Extermination vs an Enemy that fights assymetrical.
One is a dirty tactic, as is irregular warfare, and questionable, the other is inexcusable by any metric, and this is what makes the quality of the Crimes of Nazi Germany and Japan stand out.

Additionally:
from the boer war to WW1 is a time spawn of 12 years and was mostly fought in the 20th century.
WW2 is in essence only to be regarded as WW1, 5 in many ways.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

I'll give you bombing, production, strategy (up to a point), and science, but tactics and equipment? Come on. The Wehrmacht were prolific pioneers. First to use independent armoured divisions, first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks, first to use communication between pilots and soldiers on the ground, developed arguably the best machinegun of the war, developed the world's first assault rifle, first to successfully use paratroopers, and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Axis apologist. Germany didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the war, but I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due and the Wehrmacht were exceedingly proficient.

 blood reaper wrote:


I provided a semblance of a counter argument to your old fashioned axis propaganda. But we can go into detail,

> German defeated largely weakling powers and sick men in 1939 and 1940. It outnumbered the Allies at France and was fighting a country riddled by political chaos

Weakling powers? The French had the largest, best armed and best supplied army in the world. Sick men? Citation definitely needed. Outnumbered the Allies? No, not even close. The French Army had more divisions in the field, more aircraft, more tanks, more everything. Outmoded thinking, incompetence, and the sheer audacity of Manstein's plan were what won the day for the Germans.

> Germany was not alone in the war and was heavily reliant on its allies (it could have never fought in the Soviet Union without Romanian oil, for instance)

Ehhhh, bit of a stretch to say heavily reliant. They absolutely needed Romanian oil, but the fighting quality of their allies' troops left a lot to be desired. There's a reason people don't sing the praises of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies in the Second World War.

> Germany's greatest victories were against a recently industrialised and chaotic state that, once reorganised, smashed the Germans

So what? History is full of conquerors invading nations that weren't prepared for it. Do you slag Caesar for invading Gaul and Briton?

> Germany regularly suffered higher casualties than its enemies in the field on the Western Front

There's a very good reason for this. The Western Front is dormant from 1940 to 1944, by which time the Allies had ramped up into overdrive and were asserting their aerial superiority everywhere at a time when the Germans had already been bled dry by the Soviets. Most of the German divisions in France were subpar, second-line formations. The best fighting men were in the East, where the Germans consistently inflicted higher casualties on the Red Army even into 1945.

What mg are you talking about?
The 34 one or the 42?

The Germans did have decent kit. They also had some people who knew how best to utilise it. they were just hamstrung by ineptitude at the very top, especially when Hitler started directing military strategy personally.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The Germans did have decent kit. They also had some people who knew how best to utilise it. they were just hamstrung by ineptitude at the very top, especially when Hitler started directing military strategy personally.

The whole german warmachine was terrible planned and executed.
Total mobilisation of female workers never really happened until late war f.e.
Obsession with giant but ultimately useless ressource dumps like King tiger or even the panther (both were heavily overweight for their suspension).
Projects like the Atlantik wall were completly wrong built when they were not under military command, hence why Rommel literally forced his men to add in additional work hours.
Projects like the Channel islands, which again were ressource dumps which could've been used for other , more important projects.

Lets put a small shout out to Vietnam. They turned paradise into a deathtrap for the Mongols, French, Japanese, and US.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The whole german warmachine was terrible planned and executed.
Total mobilisation of female workers never really happened until late war f.e.
Obsession with giant but ultimately useless ressource dumps like King tiger or even the panther (both were heavily overweight for their suspension).
Projects like the Atlantik wall were completly wrong built when they were not under military command, hence why Rommel literally forced his men to add in additional work hours.
Projects like the Channel islands, which again were ressource dumps which could've been used for other , more important projects.

Virtually all of these, like with so many other blunders, were Hitler's doing. The Panther had a very reasonable weight for its suspension when she was being designed, but Hitler insisted on the L70 cannon and all the additional armour that got thrown onto the front of the vehicle. It was these modifications that gave the Panther its notorious maintenance problems. Granted, it was a very formidable machine that could knock out any tank on the Allied side with ease, and could withstand a great deal of punishment from the front, but its reliability was always a problem even after they refined the design with later marks.

Going to have to use direct quotes now because I deplore the quote system this site uses,

> "The Wehrmacht were prolific pioneers. First to use independent armoured divisions, first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks, first to use communication between pilots and soldiers on the ground, developed arguably the best machinegun of the war, developed the world's first assault rifle, first to successfully use paratroopers, and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward."

Germany were less pioneers and more so excellent at forcing through prototypes into the field and hoping they'd work (see almost every Germany heavy tank).

> "First to use independent armoured divisions"

Certainly true - but they weren't tremendously effective compared to those used by their enemies and often were severely understaffed and under-equipped

> "First to use radios and intercoms"

These were present amongst every nation, it's just the case that many did not have enough radios - for example, the Soviets

> "First to use communications for their pilots and soldiers on the ground"

I'd need a source on that

> "Best Machine gun of the war"

The MG34 was pretty good but the MG42 is grossly overrated.A high rate of fire does necesarily mean it is good - especially when it burns through ammo so fast (a luxury Germany did not have, mind you).

> "developed the world's first assault rifle"

Not entirely true. The concept of the assault rifle had been bounced around amongst European nations - the Germans were the first to deploy it, but far too much credit goes to the Germans for the concept.

> "first to successfully use paratroopers"

To use them, but the concept came well before Germany - the Soviets actually inspired the German use of mass paratrooper formations

> "and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward"

Not really, 'dominate the battlefield' reads like such a History Channel sentiment - especially considering that the British, Americans and Soviets largely continued using their own (superior doctrines) in favour of Germany strategies.

> "Weakling powers? The French had the largest, best armed and best supplied army in the world. Sick men? Citation definitely needed. Outnumbered the Allies? No, not even close. The French Army had more divisions in the field, more aircraft, more tanks, more everything. Outmoded thinking, incompetence, and the sheer audacity of Manstein's plan were what won the day for the Germans."

Germany had a larger army of around 3,350,000 troops (not including Italian forces at the Alps) - compared to the combined Allied forces of 3,300,000 troops.

> "best armed and supplied"

Not really. French equipment was not tremendously good nor suited for the kind of warfare they were facing (considering much of it was aimed at trench warfare).

I can't lie though, France, with a bit more clever thinking, could have humiliated the Germans in 1940. What a world that would be - millions of krauts utterly annihilated - Marshal Foch's dream.

> "Ehhhh, bit of a stretch to say heavily reliant. They absolutely needed Romanian oil, but the fighting quality of their allies' troops left a lot to be desired. There's a reason people don't sing the praises of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies in the Second World War."

Without their allies Germany could not have pushed into the Soviet Union and occupied territory. Far from excellent fighters but necessary considering the scale of the conflict. Romania switching sides for example ended the war by several months.

> "So what? History is full of conquerors invading nations that weren't prepared for it. Do you slag Caesar for invading Gaul and Briton?"

No I'd slag the people who spouted historical myths such as the German underdog story.

> "There's a very good reason for this. The Western Front is dormant from 1940 to 1944, by which time the Allies had ramped up into overdrive and were asserting their aerial superiority everywhere at a time when the Germans had already been bled dry by the Soviets. Most of the German divisions in France were subpar, second-line formations."

This is somewhat mythological. There were a number of 'premium' (though I hate to call any German units 'premium' at anything bar mass murder, racism and slaughter) units stationed in the West (paratroopers, tank divisions, etc.) - though it's true there were subpar units, with the proper command they could've been put to infinitely better use.

> "consistently inflicted higher casualties"

Which is not a surprise. A defender should, in most situations, be able to inflict 3 times the casualties they take upon the enemy. Germany had spent quite some time building defences to face a vengeful Red Army.

And on the subject of Dresden, while another user has posted the quote, the full thing is quite something,



SOW THE WIND - REAP THE WHILLRWIND

That's a badass quote when delivered against a foe that can fight back. It's slightly less badass when used as a justification after punching someone who's already down. War crimes do not stop being war crimes just because the other side had it coming.

So you also condone RAF violations of neutral airspace?

Should we now also bomb dover f.e.?
All in all it surely seems logical to do so after Shafhausen, Zürich,etc. right?

I mean:
"SOW THE WIND - REAP THE WHILLRWIND" seems in your mind perfectly acceptable right?



Edit: of the two Mg34 and 42 the 42 was the better one because it was easier to manufacture unlike the 34. However due to the bad barrell change mechanic it was not capable for beein hull miunted or coaxial.

Additonially "Bomber" Harris violated the 1909 air convention. Sure, a great man indeed,.....

It is acceptable. As Harris said, he would've done it again.

Bomber 'Great British Bake Off' Harris did nothing wrong. The Germans had, as he said, bombed in a dozen places and thus brought the reprise upon themselves.

Even then, Dresden was a vital military hub. Germany might've been losing, but she was not yet defeated. There could not be another 1918, where Germany escaped its punishment.

"However Harris stood his ground saying: 'The bombers kept over a million fit Germans out of the German army… Manning the anti-aircraft defences; making the ammunition, and doing urgent repairs, especially tradesmen.'"

Dresden has now become nothing more than a calling card for Nazi apologists, pushed forward by types like David Irving claiming the innocence of Germany. Might I say, Germany is lucky to have remained in existence after the 1st, let alone 2nd World War.

It is acceptable.

Ok airspace of neutral countries is ok to be violated, cause feth em.

Harris did nothing wrong. The Germans had, as he said, bombed in a dozen places and thus brought the reprise upon themselves.

Even then, Dresden was a vital military hub. Germany might've been losing, but she was not yet defeated. There could not be another 1918, where Germany escaped its punishment.

Harris bombed Switzerland, routed planes through switzerland and comitted mass bombings. Breaking international conventions of 1909 . SURE mate SURE.

Also 1918 unpunished?
Have you read the versaille treaty?
Or are you just germanophobic?

Dresden has now become nothing more than a calling card for Nazi apologists, pushed forward by types like David Irving claiming the innocence of Germany. Might I say, Germany is lucky to have remained in existence after the 1st, let alone 2nd World War.

Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?

I don't really care much for airspace violations when the fate of Europe is at stake. I don't believe anyone was tried at Nuremburg for airspace violations (nor mass bombings, for that matter).

'Harris bombed Switzerland'

Without the intention of doing so, true. I'm glad this wasn't mentioned.

Versailles was nothing compared to what the Germans had inflicted upon France in 1870 - which included stealing gold from the French reserves. The Germans lost territory which was usually largely not German - and ultimately Germany's imperialistic, expansionist ambitions had not been destroyed. Without a proper occupation, Germany could not recognise that it had been truly military defeated.

"Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?"

Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in.

Germany were less pioneers and more so excellent at forcing through prototypes into the field and hoping they'd work (see almost every Germany heavy tank).

Literally every belligerent nation in the war did this.

> "First to use independent armoured divisions"
Certainly true - but they weren't tremendously effective compared to those used by their enemies and often were severely understaffed and under-equipped

Weren't tremendously effective? The armoured divisions were the biggest reason the French Army was toppled in 1940. They're what trapped the Allied armies in the north, cutting them off from supply and reinforcement. Without this, it's very likely that the Wehrmacht would have settled into exactly the kind of static slugging match that the Germans had to endure in WW1.

> "First to use radios and intercoms"
These were present amongst every nation, it's just the case that many did not have enough radios - for example, the Soviets

Don't see how this is relevant. They were still the first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks. No one else did it before them.

> "First to use communications for their pilots and soldiers on the ground"
I'd need a source on that

This is a mis-quote. I said BETWEEN pilots and soldiers on the ground. The Stuka was built from the ground up to supplement the army, and it did this very well.

> "Best Machine gun of the war"
The MG34 was pretty good but the MG42 is grossly overrated.A high rate of fire does necesarily mean it is good - especially when it burns through ammo so fast (a luxury Germany did not have, mind you).

Name a better machinegun from the war. The MG42 was head and shoulders above the BAR, Browning .30, DSHK, Bren, etc.

> "developed the world's first assault rifle"

Not entirely true. The concept of the assault rifle had been bounced around amongst European nations - the Germans were the first to deploy it, but far too much credit goes to the Germans for the concept.

Again, not sure how this is relevant. They were the first to issue an assault rifle en masse to the infantry. No one else did it before them.

> "first to successfully use paratroopers"

To use them, but the concept came well before Germany - the Soviets actually inspired the German use of mass paratrooper formations

The Soviets were hilariously backwards when it came to paratroopers. Soviet paratroopers were trained to walk out onto the wings of the plane while it was flying and then jump off while the aircraft was at low speed and low altitude. The point stands that the Germans were the first to use them successfully. No one else did it before them.

> "and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward"

Not really, 'dominate the battlefield' reads like such a History Channel sentiment - especially considering that the British, Americans and Soviets largely continued using their own (superior doctrines) in favour of Germany strategies.

Every one of those nations after the war adopted combined arms in some form or another and continued to use it in for decades afterward. The Germans were the first to do it, no one else did it before them.

Germany had a larger army of around 3,350,000 troops (not including Italian forces at the Alps) - compared to the combined Allied forces of 3,300,000 troops.

The fact that you're including Italians here makes me very skeptical about how much you know about the invasion of France. The Italians did not declare war until a few weeks after the German invasion began. The French alone had some 135 divisions to the roughly 100 German divisions that actually invaded, and this is not including the BEF. Remember that at this point they already had to garrison Norway, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. The entirety of the Heer was not in France.

Not really. French equipment was not tremendously good nor suited for the kind of warfare they were facing (considering much of it was aimed at trench warfare).

Oh boy... this is patently untrue. The French equipment was excellent. The French tanks were actually better machines than what the Panzerwaffe had to work with, and the French aircraft were absolutely up to the task of contesting the skies, but again doctrinal errors and poor organization by the French high command pretty much nullified these advantages.

I can't lie though, France, with a bit more clever thinking, could have humiliated the Germans in 1940. What a world that would be - millions of krauts utterly annihilated - Marshal Foch's dream.

On this at least we agree.

Without their allies Germany could not have pushed into the Soviet Union and occupied territory. Far from excellent fighters but necessary considering the scale of the conflict. Romania switching sides for example ended the war by several months.

Only insofar as they needed the oil. The Heer did virtually all of the heavy lifting. Germany's allies did not acquit themselves very well in Russia.

No I'd slag the people who spouted historical myths such as the German underdog story.

This is not an answer to my challenge. You used Russia's state of turmoil to insinuate that the Heer's campaign against the Red Army wasn't impressive, but by this metric very few campaigns in history could be considered impressive. War is not only fought between equally prepared nation states.

This is somewhat mythological. There were a number of 'premium' (though I hate to call any German units 'premium' at anything bar mass murder, racism and slaughter) units stationed in the West (paratroopers, tank divisions, etc.) - though it's true there were subpar units, with the proper command they could've been put to infinitely better use.

Yes, there were a number of 'premium' units - 6th SS Panzer, among other divisions, was transferred away from the Eastern Front to France to deal with the impending Allied division, but such units were a tiny proportion of the fighting strength in that theatre. The vast bulk of the Heer in France were under-equipped and not fit for anything but garrison duty.

> "consistently inflicted higher casualties"

Which is not a surprise. A defender should, in most situations, be able to inflict 3 times the casualties they take upon the enemy. Germany had spent quite some time building defences to face a vengeful Red Army.

You were the one who used casualty rates to illustrate the efficacy of the armies in question. You cherry picked a theatre where the Germans woefully got their asses handed to them, but this was not the case everywhere. In fact, in most theaters in which the Germans were engaged, they repeatedly inflicted greater losses than their adversaries.