Cursed soldiers controvercy - not all Poles respect them

@pawian

What are "nazi germans" of WW II?

You do realize that not even 2% of german population in WW II were party members?

Ok, I will write Germans then, it is much simpler, indeed. Most monuments to WW2 in Poland use the name hitlerowcy - Hitler`s henchmen/followers/supporters.

Anti german rants wont help you.

Do you feel all right? :)

That wasn't an anti-German rant, Weimarer. The destruction of Poland was in large parts caused by the German military. You can call members of those forces either Nazi Germans, which would be somewhat inaccurate because most of the soldiers weren't members of the NSDAP, or you could call them simply "Germans" as Pawian said, because that's what they were. Whether drafted soldiers of the Germany military were as guilty as SS troops for example, is a different question.

Nevertheless the Nazi party did organize and lead the whole thing pompously naming it a "Thousand-Year Reich". However, it survived only 12 years of the 1,000 envisaged...

Also, Hitler was LEGALLY elected Chancellor. The failures of democracy in that country, evidenced by the swift collapse of the Weimar Republic, provides ample evidence:-)

The problem was that the Weimar Republic was doomed to fail from the beginning. It was structurally a mess and very badly organised, and it's not a surprise that they ended up with a strongman ruling when there was such chaos and dysfunction.

..because Germans weren't intellectually ready to accept the concept of democracy, delph!

That's been proven umpteen times, by German as well as Anglo-Saxon historians who point to the numerous flaws, among them, the "Sonderweg" of German history.

No, he wasn't. He lost the presidential election in 1932 and was appointed chancellor on 30 January 1933.


Not that the Treaty of Versailles had anything to do with it ... :)

@Lyzko

Democracy never works in hard times. Its a sunny weather concept.

It served the US and the UK very well in WWII. And it won the Cold War. In fact, judging how ineffective authoritatian systems tend to be, democracies are better suited to solve crisis than dictatorships.

Why are you relishing in repeating those slanders and lies? Your attitude is reprehensible. Are you a Soviet troll?


Yet 99% of them dutifully carried out all orders, no matter Nazilike.

No, I am not like you. :) Prove that they didn`t ally with Germans in 1945.

Are you a teacher? Shouldn't you be more responsible and rather careful in what you say and write? Shouldn't you take responsibility for your words and prove that they indeed allied themselves with Germans?

If you are not a clown and a soviet piece of excrements that should be your first step.


That for sure is the truth. You're irresponsible, not very wise and totally Sovietized ignorant peasant.

Sorry, I already proved it a dozen posts earlier when I wrote about their friendly contacts with Germans. I provided links and quoted the patriotic underground press at the time which called those sudden German lovers the right name - traitors.

We can call it whatever, alliance or cooperation, but the fact is a fact. Now it is time for you to prove I am wrong. So far, you only blaah blaah in your usual style, instead of providing facts.

What would you have done? Open your mouth and kill yourself and your family with your actions?

@Ironside

Same as polish did under USSR rule. Even killing their own people.

@Tacitus: the USA never was in any real war. And the UK basicly was a military dictatorship during the war.

Do you believe Merkel, Altmeier and Uschi will win a war? Make decissions?

@Weimarer,
Then I guess you would have been a Hitler supporter! G-d Bless the FuehereLOL
As a non-Christian, as someone who doesn't acknowledge the sanctity of spirituality, you never were taught
that humanity is ALWAYS a valid concept, rain or shine!!!

@TheOther,
As I said, Hitler was appointed LEGALLY, when President Hindenburg was deemed too mentally unfit to serve, not realizing the consequences of his decision. This is known as the "Staatsakt". The Nazi Seizure of Power was mandated, if you will, by a majority vote. Thereafter of course, the entire law was re-drafted to fit Nazi ideology, culminating in the Nuremberg Law.

Please don't debate me on the facts of history, 'cuz you'll lose hands down!

You said that Hitler was legally ELECTED (see #67), and that's incorrect. Don't debate facts just because they don't fit your narrative.

The point is that Americans typically believe that Hitler merely walked in to the parliament and seized control of Germany, and the issue is that he was elected.

That's not difficult to understand:-)

The issue is that you are talking BS... :)

The Weimar Republic had a system of proportional representation where the electorate voted for parties, not persons. In the federal election of November 1932, the NSDAP received 33.09% of the votes, which was a loss of 34 seats. They failed to form a coalition, and after the parliament was dissolved, Hindenburg first appointed Kurt von Schleicher as chancellor. When von Schleicher resigned in January 1933, Hindenburg appointed ... I repeat, appointed ... Hitler. Adolf was never democratically elected.

Let's leave it at that before we drift even further off-topic. Sorry, mods.

Hitler was appointed, BUT his Nazi party gained over 100 seats in the Reichstag... then Hitler, being leader of the Nazis, was appointed chancellor

Yes, but the reason for Hitler's appointment was not that the NSDAP received 33% of the vote.

history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-is-named-chancellor-of-germany

I believe this is a general quirk of European political systems - leaders of governments are appointed by the head of state, but that they then have to command a majority in their parliament in order to be confirmed in their position. They never win election directly, but are simply the person that the head of state feels has a chance of winning a vote of confidence.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this system. Leaders of governments should have to win their place through parliament first, IMO.

No it was because he was an awesome speaker and people liked his message. Who could blame them considering the backstabbing during ww2, inflation, high unemployment, and jewish people being way overrepresented in top positions.

Hitler actually received double the votes n the 1932 election than Hindenburg did but due to the electoral system Hindenburg won. Hitler became chancellor when the other dude resigned, then wanted back in and there were a bunch of backroom deals where ultimately the Nazis ended up being guaranteed several posts - including chancellor.

He was an instinctive orator, although technically, a louse elocutionist!

In a country weak, defeated, and morally sick, he pandered as none other to the primitive fears and yearnings of a "civilized", yet profoundly unenlightened, people.

The strange thing to me remains the behaviour of other parties at that time. Why the conservative parties supported Hitler is an utter mystery to me, especially given that they had no means of controlling him.

Oh, but I never once said "democratically", did I? Don't forget, the Nazi regime had her own spin on the whole idea of legality! Methinks you're splitting hairs once again.Someone can be legally appointed, even if not "democratically, as understood by us in the current US.

It's worth to mention that German communists could block Hitler and NSDAP if they formed coalition with socialists earlier on. The reason why they didn't was that they did get orders from "The Central" (from the USSR) to not do so. For devoted communists the USSR (Comintern) was always the only real "fatherland".

For Stalin, Hitler was a very useful tool at that time. He has chocked on that tool later on but that's a different story...

jacobinmag.com/2015/11/nuremberg-trials-hitler-goebbels-himmler-german-communist-social-democrats/