Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 113

9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling down


sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #91
I thought we were talking about crimes in peace times?

I thought there were no crimes committed by the Allies in occupied Germany during peace times? If not allied crimes are there any specific German crimes you have in mind that should not have been treated as war crimes ? I thought you said not?
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,770  
11 Nov 2009 /  #92
Are you being so naive or do you just play it? Do you really believe there had been never crimes against the german civilians by the occupying troops???

It was not if they happened but how they were called! Because all german crimes during occupations were called war crimes by the allies.

I'm repeating this now for the third time...
southern 74 | 7,074  
11 Nov 2009 /  #93
The lawyers of the german defendants in Nurnberg trials tried to raise this issue of punishing allies crimes against german nation but the court accepted the version that newly decided regulaton about war crimes included only german war crimes and not crimes commited by allied forces.
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #94
BB.

sjam:
I personally am sure that all countries involved in WWII actually committed war crimes but it is usually the victor that determines what war crimes are prosecuted.

You see I even believe the Allies probably committed war crimes during the war!

Do you really believe there had been never crimes against the german civilians by the occupying troops???

I do not believe that no crimes were committed against the Germans by the occupying Allied forces. The Soviets certainly raped tens of thousands of German women, as well as Poles, Austrians, Slovaks etc. These were crimes. I am equally sure that the US and British forces committed crimes against Germans.

But you obviously have a specific crime(s) in mind?

Or:

If not allied crimes are there any specific German crimes you have in mind that should not have been treated as war crimes ?

Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,770  
11 Nov 2009 /  #95
But you obviously have a specific crime(s) in mind?

No, I don't have!
The russians are a special case as they never even tried to be of the "western civilisation" heritage.

I also think it doesn't come something good out of all these ***** fights about who did what when, how, how often and especially, who was worse! (Especially between people now who weren't even a glint in the eyes of their parents as all that happened)

As long as the Germans are now allowed to talk about their own victims, to commemorate and to mourn them without somebody foreign popping a vein I'm all for building a better, peaceful future.

My only question was why the different naming of german crimes and allied crimes during occupation, that's all, really!
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #96
My only question was why the different naming of german crimes and allied crimes during occupation, that's all, really!

Excluding the Soviets what allied crimes during occupation are you refering to in particular?
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,770  
11 Nov 2009 /  #97
Slave labor of Germans snatched from the streets and frisked away (especially in the french and soviet zone). POW's getting stripped of their status the moment Germany subscribed the defeat contrary to the Genfer conventions (doesn't needed anymore to be treated as enemy combatants, lots of soldiers died because of that.)

Letting the Soviets handling the eastern zone "soviet style" without any try to help (quite the contrary supporting them in delivering POW's and russian opposition full knowing that would mean their death, exporting the coal from the Ruhr territory to the neighbouring countries without letting the Germans have some during the first brutal winters after the war (but they were forced to mine it of course).

Letting around 2 million people die during the forced ethnic cleansing of around 12 million Germans after the "rearrangement" of borders...the usual rapes and violations of the civilians...that kind of stuff.
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #98
I am not so sure that I would agree with you that all of these were crimes. I believe much of what you have outlined was undoubtedly the victors punishment for all the German crimes, as one would righty expect there to be.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,770  
11 Nov 2009 /  #99
See...that's why it is so useles to discuss these things. We have our view, you have your view....and both are correct in their context!

There are books out there who handle the topic about the occupied Germany much better than I could...take a look if you are really interested!

I for one just always wondered why the western allies immediately forbade every German to keep cameras or radios in the first time...
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #100
I for one just always wondered why the western allies immediately forbade every German to keep cameras or radios in the first time...

Jealousy... all those beautiful Ziess lenses and Telefunken radio valves.

Or maybe to counter the supposed threat of SS Werwolf Resistance in Europe which in fact never amounted to anything other than a perceived threat than any real threat to the occupational forces. But the Allies did not know this at the time.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 11,770  
11 Nov 2009 /  #101
Jealousy... all those beautiful Ziess lenses and Telefunken radio valves.

:):):)

Or maybe to counter the supposed threat of SS Werwolf Resistance in Europe which in fact never amounted to anything other than a perceived threat than any real threat to the occupational forces.

No, actually there was no resistance movement. The mood was more like "better an end with horrors than an horror without end".

And on the other hand the deep urge of every true German to keep things clean and working must had made us to the best and neatest occupied countries ever...;)

Therefore there was not much punishing actions by the western allies needed which in turn kept the usual hate to a minimum and led soon to cordial, working relationships between the occupier and the occupied...alot of rebuilding had to be done, better start now!

(Of course the zones differed)
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #102
The British and Germans were not natural enemies. But for a treaty with Poland would Britain and Germany have gone to war with each other again? I very much doubt it, Hitler didn't want it and neither did HMG or the Royal family. And some Poles will say to you Britain did its best not to get dragged further into war with Germany even after war was declared!
1jola 14 | 1,879  
11 Nov 2009 /  #103
But for a treaty with Poland would Britain and Germany have gone to war with each other again?

Do you think it was a bad move to honor the treaty? And are you saying that present day Britain is a partner you shouldn't trust?

And some Poles will say to you Britain did its best not to get dragged further into war with Germany even after war was declared!

Thank God we don't judge all Brits on the basis of this English poster's "views."
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #104
Do you think it was a bad move to honor the treaty?

No.

But maybe it was a bad move to initiate a treaty with Poland in the first place.
Why did Britain get involved in signing a treaty with a country that most Brits at that time would have been hard to place on a map? Nazi Germany posed no threat to Britain at that time. I am sure it was just Britain playing the world power. Britain not enetering into a treaty with Poland might have stoped what the US thought of as a European war becoming a world war. That would not have been any better news for Poland who was going to come to blows with Germany regardless of it being a European war or a world war but we can only conjecture what the world would have looked like today if this treaty between Britain and Poland had not existed? Maybe a world dominated by the British Empire and a German empire in the East?

Thank God we don't judge all Brits on the basis of this English poster's "views."

Thank God also :-))
1jola 14 | 1,879  
11 Nov 2009 /  #105
But maybe it was a bad move to initiate a treaty with Poland in the first place.

So you would have liked to see the continent dominated by the Nazis and the Soviets then? That is what would have happened.

The only bad move was made by Hitler who thought treaties were useless and he signed and broke them at will.

Why did Britain get involved in signing a treaty with a country that most Brits at that time would have been hard to place on a map?

I know it might be hard for you to grasp this, but governments don't sign treaties on basis of their citizens geography skills.
sjam 2 | 541  
11 Nov 2009 /  #106
So you would have liked to see the continent dominated by the Nazis and the Soviets then? That is what would have happened.

No. I would not have liked the continent to have been dominated by either the Nazis and Soviets. I merely point out that by initiating a treaty with Poland maybe his was a bad move by Britain and maybe could have prevented a world war rather than just a European war. But Britain did have a treaty with Poland which it honoured.

Poland had signed non-agression treaties with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union long before signing any treaty with Britain. So at one point even Poland did not think a treaty with Britain was needed?

I know it might be hard for you to grasp this, but governments don't sign treaties on basis of their citizens geography skills.

Governments have many reasons for signing treaties what do you think the reason was that Britain signed one with Poland? Many in Britain at the time couldn't understand why?
1jola 14 | 1,879  
12 Nov 2009 /  #107
Neither Britain nor Poland were agressive at that time. Let's not say it was a bad move for these countries to agree to cooperate against agression.

Yes, I'm sure many people didn't and don't understand mutual defense. Britain and Poland didn't start the war, the Germans and the Soviets did as both wanted to rule Europe. The Soviets were a far bigger threat but they get a free pass now in the history school texts since they became "allies" later on in the war. The red menace became heros. What a f***ed up world.
sjam 2 | 541  
12 Nov 2009 /  #108
Governments have many reasons for signing treaties what do you think the reason was that Britain signed one with Poland?

Yes, I'm sure many people didn't and don't understand mutual defense.

In what way was Poland helping or could help Britain with mutual defence of Britain in May-August 1939? Germany posed no threat to Britain only to Poland! Hitler's plan for Lebensraum was eastwards not westwards. So I ask again why do you think Britain enetered into a treaty with Poland?

the Germans and the Soviets did as both wanted to rule Europe.

This is absurd. Germany only wanted eastern european lands including western Russia, Hitler fully expected at some point in the future to drive the Russian's deep into Eastern Russia and keep them there, if not entirely liquidated. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact guaranteed that in the event of the German invasion of Poland the Soviets would not open an Eastern front should Britain and France declare war on Germany. As we know this strategy worked as planned. Had Britain and France not declared war on Germany in accordance with their treaties with Poland, Hitler would not have been forced to act in Western Europe at all. Hitler buoyed-up with the staggeringly easy victories over France (a victory that was much faster and easier than over Poland) and as easy victories over much of western Europe gave him the freedom of action to turn his attention to dealing with the USSR, which he did as the western european front was pretty much under his armies complete control.

Stailn had no plans to invade German occupied territories! The USSR was still shipping huge quantities of Russian goods and materials into Germany up until the day Hitler's Axis forces attacked Russia! Stalin refused to accept any notion that Hitler was planning to attack Russia despite plenty of Russian intelleigence evidence to the contrary, he even believed that the massed German forces gathering in staging points on the Russia occupied territorial borders were only there on military excersises!! Stalin made no agressive moves against Germany until the USSR was attacked Germany.
southern 74 | 7,074  
12 Nov 2009 /  #109
Stalin made no agressive moves against Germany until the USSR was attacked Germany.

Stalin annexed Baltics,half of Poland and kept masses of army next to the borders.He had also ordered boost of production of new tanks like T-34s,planes and weapons like the PPSh41.
1jola 14 | 1,879  
12 Nov 2009 /  #110
Germany posed no threat to Britain only to Poland! Hitler's plan for Lebensraum was eastwards not westwards.

From memory, Hitler had grand designs for western Europe as well.

In what way was Poland helping or could help Britain with mutual defence of Britain in May-August 1939?

Had Hitler attacked Britain, Poland would have declared war, and sent troops.

So I ask again why do you think Britain enetered into a treaty with Poland?

I haven't read much about that, but you seem to know, so enlighten me.

Stailn had no plans to invade German occupied territories!

The peaceful Stalin was just helping Hitler to take over Europe, and the bastard Hitler unfairly attacked him, right? In a minute you will say that if Poland had accepted Hitler's reasonable demands, he wouldn't had attacked her either, or some other nonsense so popular today.
sjam 2 | 541  
12 Nov 2009 /  #111
I haven't read much about that, but you seem to know, so enlighten me.

Christ knows. It made no sense at all, Poland had no strategic value to Britain and its empire or to France for that matter.

My only thought is that Britain was trying to use its political muscle as the premier world power (which it was at that time) to try and impress Hitler that if he messed in Europe he would have to mess with the world's most powerfull nation and that would be enough to hold him in check.

The fact that Britain's mobilisation plans for war were no where near in place when war was declared shows how much store HMG had in the belief that Hitler would not dare contemplate taking on Britain. Hitler equally believed Britain and France were bluffing, as they had not acted over any of Hitlers earlier transgressions. He was wrong also.

Had Hitler attacked Britain, Poland would have declared war, and sent troops.

Hitler had no desire to attack Britain he wanted the East not the west. So the Polish part of the treaty was of no real value or consequence to Britain's postition in May-August 1939, which is why I asked you why you thought Britain signed this treaty? Poland needed Britain's guarantee not the other way around, Britain was the power Poland was not.

The peaceful Stalin was just helping Hitler to take over Europe, and the bastard Hitler unfairly attacked him, right? In a minute you will say that if Poland had accepted Hitler's reasonable demands, he wouldn't had attacked her either, or some other nonsense so popular today.

Stalin certainly believed Hitler unfairly attacked the USSR. Molotov certainly made this clear:

Today at 4 o'clock a.m., without any claims having been presented to the Soviet Union, without a declaration of war, German troops attacked our country, attacked our borders at many points and bombed from their airplanes our cities; Zhitomir, Kiev, Sevastopol, Kaunas and some others, killing and wounding over two hundred persons.

There were also enemy air raids and artillery shelling from Rumanian and Finnish territory.

This unheard of attack upon our country is perfidy unparalleled in the history of civilized nations. The attack on our country was perpetrated despite the fact that a treaty of non-aggression had been signed between the U. S. S. R. and Germany and that the Soviet Government most faithfully abided by all provisions of this treaty.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1941molotov.html

As to Hitler's demands on Poland who is to say what might or might not have happened if Poland ceded to these demands. They did not, and that is the history of it.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569  
20 Nov 2009 /  #112
Christ knows. It made no sense at all,

If you're finding it difficult to make sense of it all, I can only draw your attention to pp.26-28 of "Rising '44" by Norman Davies (2003 ed.). He promulgates some fairly cogent reasons which make sense to me, and it should put you down the right path. Whilst Mr Davies is not Christ, he does seem to have a good handle on the situation in question.

As to Hitler's demands on Poland who is to say what might or might not have happened if Poland ceded to these demands.

Perhaps Poland may have survived in a fashion to which large emigre movements would not have materialised post WW2, thus obviating the need for you to act as moral inquisitor regarding the metaphysical questions you pose to the descendants of such emigres' vis a vis what they may or may not have done if ordered by their C in C to carry out an attack on Communist Poland...

How did you feel about your Polish relatives as you were taking your oath of allegience to the US commander-in-chief, the President, whilst enlisting in the US airforce and knowing one day your C-in-C might have ordered you to bomb Poland?

Whilst tempting, I'll refrain from asking you the very same question, as it would be disingenuous of me to ask and expect you to reply without feeling trapped, as the answer, by virtue of the question, predicates a negative response that would draw an adverse inference no matter how you answered (it would of course be a hypothetical upon a hypothetical as I'll assume you never joined or served the armed forces of your nation, but correct me if I'm wrong).

It would be prudent to bear in mind that questions of morality, loyalty and conscience must be framed in terms that take account of the context to which the questions relate to, rather than transposing modern day sensibilities, norms and mores to a scenario that happened in the past when of course, such sensibilities, mores and norms were different.

A parable perhaps?

A man stands facing a choice: 2 armed men with guns, who are pointing same at his parents' heads, have asked him to choose - who is to perish, his mum, or his dad?

How does one answer that?

Feel free to have a shot, but if you feel trapped, perhaps you ought to show some restraint in future when thinking about posing such questions to forum members who either have parents who faced such dilemmas, or faced such dilemmas themselves.

And good job too as without Soviet blood-sacrfice on the eastern front the Nazis would not have been defeated. Period.

This proposition presupposes that the Soviets would not have fought the Germans but for 'concessions' and effectively carte blanche from the Allies. It is difficult to reconcile the notion that the Soviet command and/or rank and file simply would have upped stumps and ceased fighting if word was gleaned that the Allies would be scrutinising Soviet actions, or, more relevantly, refraining from quiet acquiescence on the question of Poland's borders and sovereignty. Logic would suggest that the dice was cast at the inception of Operation Barbarossa and that the fight between Germany and Russia would continue until one was annihilated, rather than Russia's continuation of the fight being subject to security of geo-political hegemony and tacit surety from the Allies that such hegemony would not be seriously challenged ex post facto.

Poland's status therefore as sacrificial lamb to the flawed notion of a requirement for a Soviet 'guarantee' of mutually assured destruction of Germany could and should therefore have been avoided.

That said, if you have firm evidence to suggest that the kid glove handling of the USSR was required lest they stop fighting, or worse, turn on the allies, then please share.

If so then we must ask what war crimes Poles may have committed against Germans during WWII also?

Please do. I've heard of one - during the Warsaw Rising a group of SS soldiers were captured by some Polish civilians. The SS men had their skin peeled off and then salted. Their ultimate fate is unknown to me. It was a form of torture prescribed for the SS penchant of:

a. grabbing infants by the legs and smashing them against walls
b. using infants as bayonet practice
c. rolling grenades into basements where civilians were hiding
d. lining families against a wall, shooting all the adults whilst pretending to shoot the children, letting the children absorb the spectacle, and the brains and blood of their parents, then shooting the children

Are these the types of war crimes you refer to? If prosecution for alleged Polish perpetrated war crimes occurred, would we adopt a subjective or objective test of criminality? Do you think these types of 'revenge attacks' ought to be investigated and prosecuted?
sjam 2 | 541  
20 Nov 2009 /  #113
Whilst tempting, I'll refrain from asking you the very same question.

Why on earth would I feel trapped by such a simple question? My answer is simple.

I would not have taken a military oath of allegience with fully considering the serious consequences of that descision. However having taken that oath I would honour that oath and carry out my duty. Wouldn't you? I honour all the promises I make or if I know I can't then I don't make them, but that is just me.

A man stands facing a choice: 2 armed men with guns, who are pointing same at his parents' heads, have asked him to choose - who is to perish, his mum, or his dad?

That again is simple.

His mother. His father survives to continue the family name.

That said, if you have firm evidence to suggest that the kid glove handling of the USSR was required lest they stop fighting, or worse, turn on the allies, then please share.

We did that some time ago and it was beyond your comprehension then and it is probably stiil beyond you now, but just in case there has been some dramatic breakthorugh and you want to have another go, it is your perogative go back to the relevant thread and give it a try-you may truly surprise yourself and me!

Do you think these types of 'revenge attacks' ought to be investigated and prosecuted?

In law most definitely. But on a personal level for me, no.

Does that give you all you need???

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / 9th November 1989: And the wall came tumbling downArchived