quote:

Are you aware that Hitler was voted Times Man of the Year in 1938 and was front cover feature of Time magazine Jan. 1939?

Are you also aware that Stalin, overseer of the gulags and (at that time) a German ally was on the Times cover in January 1940?

I think it says more about the editorial staff than what was known about those leaders and their motivations/ambitions.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
The fact remains: long before a drop of blood was spilt in WW2 the people of Germany willingly took part in acts of barbarism.

I see you are a disciple of Goldhagen's repulsive racial theories.

quote:

They willingly voted in a party that admitted to wanting to do these things. They were not, as you are attempting to show, doing things against their will.

The Nazi party came to power despite its anti semitism, not because of it. The Nazi party promised an economic recovery which the other parties had failed to deliver. This was the most important thing to Germans at the time. As I showed earlier a majority of Germans never voted for the Nazis so to blame the whole nation is nonsense.

I have not argued that things were done against the will of the German people, only that the Nazis never sought to find out the wishes of the German people.

Most of the the holocaust was carried out in secret and even if rumours emanating from the foreign media were heard most Germans regarded it as the same sort of Allied propaganda like babies on bayonets in WW1. Even the jews of Hungary at first would not believe one of the few escapees from Auschwitz what was happening there.

The number of Germans involved in "acts of barbarism" was relatively few and to blame a whole nation for that is simply wrong.

quote:

This is a lie. Most of the air raids were strategic, impressing upon the Nazis a great responsibility to keep AA guns and manpower back from thje East.

Decrypted,

The British Air Staff Paper of Sept 1941 concerned with area bombing states:

"The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death."

The Area Bombing Directive issued by the Air Ministry to RAF Bomber Command in Feb 1942 stated:

"Operations should now be focussed on the morale of the enemy civilian population and in particular, the industrial workers"

The next day Sir Charles Portal wrote:

" ... it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories."

It's strategic only in the sense that the strategy is to target the workers.

quote:

The British Air Staff Paper of Sept 1941 concerned with area bombing states:

"The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death."

Which wasn't purely targetting civilians, it was targetting areas with industries essential to the continuing growth of the Third Reich. Civilian morale was also part of the war machine that the Nazis had honed: all this being essential to ensuring allied victory (and indeed the rate of military output declined compared to allied)

quote:

The Nazi party came to power despite its anti semitism, not because of it. The Nazi party promised an economic recovery which the other parties had failed to deliver.

Hitler frequently used the Jews as scapegoats for the reason that Germany lost the first world war and were in economic dire straits.

This propaganda was mixed with telling various segments of German society what they wanted to hear, but the root cause was made clear. Add also the various Aryan garbage that the German people were already well versed in (Germans had been fed a diet of this for decades so Hitler's task was made easier)

quote:

As I showed earlier a majority of Germans never voted for the Nazis so to blame the whole nation is nonsense.

Regardless of the percentages the system gave Hitler power, and the people accepted that system. Plebiscites afterwards confirmed that a large majority of people accepted the Nazis.

quote:

Most of the the holocaust was carried out in secret and even if rumours emanating from the foreign media were heard most Germans regarded it as the same sort of Allied propaganda like babies on bayonets in WW1.

The Germans knew about the laws that stripped the rights from Jews. They were quite happy to see that. And don't give me that guff about anti-semitism being common across the west. Britain had abolished slave labour in the 19th century, repealed anti-Catholic laws and had a Jewish (albeit converted to Christianity)Prime Minister even before the clock passed to the twentieth century. And many Germans were more than happy to make use of former Jewish property when their Jewish neighbours started disappearing.

The Nazis voted in a man who had made it clear what his intentions were. If you were socialist you wouldn't vote the BNP in just because they have ideas about renationalising British industry. The German people overwhelmingly accepted the Nazi regime and becamse complicit in their crimes.

And whether you believe them to be all sweetness and honey pie still doesn't detract from the difficulty the allies had in bringing the economy of Germany down. Had we been able to create a western front, like in 1914, I'm sure most of the attack would have been focussed there. Sadly an amphibious landing capable of pushing back the Nazis from occupied France required massive planning and investment to work successfully. And that didn't happen until mid 1944.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
Which wasn't purely targetting civilians, it was targetting areas with industries essential to the continuing growth of the Third Reich. Civilian morale was also part of the war machine that the Nazis had honed: all this being essential to ensuring allied victory (and indeed the rate of military output declined compared to allied)

You are now splitting hairs to try to justify the Allied aeriel bombing terror campaign.

What I find remarkable is that after the experience of the Blitz, which galvanized British resistance, that the Allies thought that bombing German civilians would produce the opposite effect. This never happened and the RAF/USAF never succeeded in convincing the Germans that the bombing of the villages, towns and cities was Hitler's fault.

quote:

You are now splitting hairs to try to justify the Allied aeriel bombing terror campaign.

The morale busting side didn't work: the effect on the German economy did.

quote:

Which wasn't purely targetting civilians, it was targetting areas with industries essential to the continuing growth of the Third Reich.

decrypted,

And you don't think the other quotes put it into context?

"Operations should now be focussed on the morale of the enemy civilian population and in particular, the industrial workers"


" ... it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories."

or that perhaps your arguments fall into Churchill's 'other pretexts'?

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed"

Do you have any contemporary documentary evidence to support your statements?

quote:

Actually it's more "dear love"

Liebling,

Never in a million years.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
Regardless of the percentages the system gave Hitler power, and the people accepted that system. Plebiscites afterwards confirmed that a large majority of people accepted the Nazis.

The plebicites on specific issues such as re-occupation of the Rheinland, Anschluss and the Sudentenland had votes in favour of about 99.9%. If you do not believe these to be rigged you no doubt believe that 99.9% of the people in the Soviet Union approved of the Communist party. Nevertheless, none of the plebicites I am aware of specifically show approval of the Nazi party. Can you quote one that does?

quote:

The Germans knew about the laws that stripped the rights from Jews. They were quite happy to see that.

As the Nuremberg Laws were not passed until September 1935, two years after the Germans had been stripped of their democratic vote, please provide evidence that they were happy with them.

quote:

The Nazis voted in a man who had made it clear what his intentions were.

Others have shown above this is simply untrue, so I will not go over this again.

quote:

If you were socialist you wouldn't vote the BNP in just because they have ideas about renationalising British industry. The German people overwhelmingly accepted the Nazi regime and becamse complicit in their crimes.

Again you refer to overwhelming acceptance yet the percentage vote, 37%, which brought Hitler to power is similar to the level that gets governments in Britain elected. Many now accuse Tony Blair and therefore his government of war crimes related to Iraq - in the unlikely event that he is convicted of war crimes will you accept that you were complicit, especially as at the last election he was not removed from power?

quote:

Regardless of the percentages the system gave Hitler power

decrypted,

Are you aware that Hitler lost the vote to Hindenburg?

See William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for a concise account of how Hitler seizwed power

quote:

decrypted,

And you don't think the other quotes put it into context?

"Operations should now be focussed on the morale of the enemy civilian population and in particular, the industrial workers"

That "in particular" explains it. Those who contribute most to the war machine.

quote:

" ... it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories."

Inland industries. Driving forces of the war machine.

Of course, you seem to be living in a reverse universe: the Nazis did this to us first, then we struck them back.

quote:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed"

Which is Churchill quoting his belief, by Spring 1945 that it didn't reduce the enemy civilian's morale - that's not the same as saying the bombing didn't affect military output for the Nazi war machine.

quote:

Originally posted by Lett328:


The plebicites on specific issues such as re-occupation of the Rheinland, Anschluss and the Sudentenland had votes in favour of about 99.9%. If you do not believe these to be rigged you no doubt believe that 99.9% of the people in the Soviet Union approved of the Communist party.

There's no question that the Nazi thugs ensured total support. The issue is that there were no protests, no heroic counter revolutions to suggest any dissent. And as much as the elections were rigged, there were also a majority who *did* support the Nazis and the policy of annexing German territory.

quote:

As the Nuremberg Laws were not passed until September 1935, two years after the Germans had been stripped of their democratic vote, please provide evidence that they were happy with them.

The were happy because they voted in Hitler..in a system that recognised the majority party as the chief power in the cabinet. The German people were aware of how their system worked. It wasn't first past the post. None of this has any bearing on the fact that the German people were complicit in their support of the Third Reich. No major protests or resitances.

quote:

Again you refer to overwhelming acceptance yet the percentage vote, 37%, which brought Hitler to power is similar to the level that gets governments in Britain elected. Many now accuse Tony Blair and therefore his government of war crimes related to Iraq - in the unlikely event that he is convicted of war crimes will you accept that you were complicit, especially as at the last election he was not removed from power?

If Britain was to be embroiled in a war with another state, for which we acted aggressively to (say invaded) then the British people has to accept that they are all responsible. Just like we accepted to stand together when Hitler bombed us all in 1940 (did he intend to just hit targets that had expressed support for Chamberlain's declaration of war?)

quote:

Are you aware that Hitler lost the vote to Hindenburg?

That was the Presidential election.

quote:

That "in particular" explains it. Those who contribute most to the war machine.

decrypted,

So, you are saying that bombing civilian housing is legitimate because if you kill the civilians, they won't be able to work.

quote:

Inland industries. Driving forces of the war machine.

What industries existed in the residential areas of Hamburg that were bombed?

quote:

Which is Churchill quoting his belief, by Spring 1945 that it didn't reduce the enemy civilian's morale

How do you know he is referring to morale?

quote:

That was the Presidential election.

decrypted,

yes that's correct.

Hindenburg 53%
Hitler 36.8%
Thaelman 10.2%

So, with Hindenburg as president, how does Hitler, never with a majority in the reichstag, get the position of chancellor when Hindenburg didn't want to appoint him?

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
The issue is that there were no protests, no heroic counter revolutions to suggest any dissent. And as much as the elections were rigged, there were also a majority who *did* support the Nazis and the policy of annexing German territory.

You seem to have no concept of how totalitarian states opperate. Even in China today it is impossible to "protest" unless the government approves. If the support for annexing German territory is the worst crime you can accuse the Germans of, then you really are trying to strech the point to far. For your information there were Germans who resisted the Nazis but most ended up in concentration camps. Any resistance was stamped on immediately. The same repressive system operated in the Soviet Union which only collapsed because it was economically unsustainable despite the fact the majority of the enslaved people opposed communism.

quote:

The were happy because they voted in Hitler..in a system that recognised the majority party as the chief power in the cabinet. The German people were aware of how their system worked. It wasn't first past the post. None of this has any bearing on the fact that the German people were complicit in their support of the Third Reich. No major protests or resitances.

See my response above. Did the people in 1933 know what the Nazi laws passed in 1935 would be?

quote:

If Britain was to be embroiled in a war with another state, for which we acted aggressively to (say invaded) then the British people has to accept that they are all responsible. Just like we accepted to stand together when Hitler bombed us all in 1940 (did he intend to just hit targets that had expressed support for Chamberlain's declaration of war?)

Your aguments really are just getting silly. Collective responsibility is only applicable when there is unanimous approval. The logical extension to your argument is that since we did nothing to stop the holocaust were are all responsible. Is that what you are trying to prove?

Harry

quote:

And you don't think the other quotes put it into context?

"Operations should now be focussed on the morale of the enemy civilian population and in particular, the industrial workers"


" ... it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories."

I think in the desperate circumstances of February 1942 the question was what options were open to Churchill and the RAF?

After all previous attempts at "planned" bombing of precise targets had been shown up to be a complete farce by the Butt report of the previous summer/autumn, very embarrasingly so. And this at a time when losses to radar guided nightfighters were becoming heavy - it was intolerable to go on suffering heavy losses for no return

I believe that it was Kitchener who said in WW1 that we make war as we must not as we would like.

It is undoubtedly true that the Bomber Command area offensive did force the diversion of very impt. German resources away from the Russian front.

A true second front in Europe was not possible until 1944. Context is all really.

What else could the western allies have done?

Harry

quote:

Essentially, what you are saying is that if Hitler had been willing to place more trust in the judgement of his generals rather than his own judgement, things may have been very different.

But the whole cult around Hitler was that of a man with vision who with a supreme act of unbending will could move mountains. Hence the Nazi interest in Nietsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.

That's the crux of it certainly. Manstein made an interesting point though - he said that Hitler lacked the nerve for risk taking in terms of mobile operations, giving up some territory in order to react with a lightening counter-stroke. He thought that Hitler lacked the military knowledge and expertise to be able to evaluate the risk and return properly. So in a way the "iron will", hold at all costs, became a cop-out. Hitler was very intuitive obviously but he failed to realise this weakness in himself. No doubt he came to think of himself as a second Alexander, but of course he wasn't.

quote:

decrypted,

So, you are saying that bombing civilian housing is legitimate because if you kill the civilians, they won't be able to work.

I think you're oversimplifying what Bomber command were asking: which is to target industrial areas and take out the associated working populations as well as the machinery that generated the products for war. Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't have bombed them? The Nazis were bombing us even more indiscrimantly - the effect on the people was not negligible: we didn't break but we sure as hell were near to, especially at the lowest points.

quote:

What industries existed in the residential areas of Hamburg that were bombed?

I didn't say Hamburg. Hamburg would be classified under purely civilian. Even Dresden was attacked at two major points with strategic value.

[quoet]
How do you know he is referring to morale?[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
To terrorise is to make a group cower with fear. If that's not attempting to break the people then I don't know what is.

You're just going to have to accept that one of the beliefs at the time was that if you pound the people hard enough you break them. It nearly worked with Britain at a much lower scale. It certainly worked in convincing Japan - albeit using Atomic power to obtain similar casualty figures.