NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? Seems that a lot of people think that every enlisted men in the German forces was a fanatical Nazi. Your opinion?

What do you think? Seems that a lot of people think that every enlisted men in the German forces was a fanatical Nazi. Your opinion?

Those people are idiots

What do you think? Seems that a lot of people think that every enlisted men in the German forces was a fanatical Nazi. Your opinion?

No. If you joined the SS, then you would have been. Most of the German soldiers were far more human and didn't have much choice really. If you didn't do what they said, someone would have shot you. They have blood on their hands but they were pawns in a game not of their making.

Now was every Russian soldier a fanatical Communist?
Now was every Japanese soldier a fanatical suicidal maniac?

No. If you joined the SS, then you would have been. Most of the German soldiers were far more human and didn't have much choice really. If you didn't do what they said, someone would have shot you. They have blood on their hands but they were pawns in a game not of their making.

Not really correct, the SS still had Panzer Divisions and infantry, they were just the elite, like the US Marines over the Army. Not all of the SS were monsters, only the Death Head Units...

I don't think so. Gestapo and SS maybe, but I don't think every Whermacht soldier was... even if you don't believe in Sven Hassel's stories...

The SS were the soldiers of the Nazi Party. The German Army was the NATIONAL army. Not every soldier was a member of the Nazi party (NSDAP) which would be required to actually BE a Nazi.

Not really correct, the SS still had Panzer Divisions and infantry, they were just the elite, like the US Marines over the Army. Not all of the SS were monsters, only the Death Head Units...

Point taken, but the SS unit were more Nazi then regular ones. Better killers and far less humane ... perfect people for the dirty jobs I guess.

as far as i know , a person became a nazi as soon as he joins the party not as soon as he joins/will be formed to army.Think about it a moment :eek:

There are ways to NOT get in the army. Anyone willing to fight for the Führer is a Nazi

There are ways to NOT get in the army. Anyone willing to fight for the Führer is a Nazi
Yep, there were. But all these ways ended up 6 feet under the ground. With some lead in excess on your head, mark you.

Point taken, but the SS unit were more Nazi then regular ones. Better killers and far less humane ... perfect people for the dirty jobs I guess.

I think that to call every soldier who fought in the SS a Nazi is a failed idea. The SS were the best of the best, hence they were selected for missions where the standard Whermacht might not win. I mean the SS Panzer Divisions were not exactly killing innocent people en mass, nor were the SS infantry divisions. I see where you are coming from though, I mean you could say the same thing about the Marines over the US Army better killers and less humane...

does this topic really matter? no. To me and most of the population of the world a German soldier who fought in WWII was a Nazi. There are exceptions of those who were underground Allied sympathizers but a German soldier = Nazi. I think the same applies to an Axis solider = fascist or some extreme faction that is pro-fascist.

There are ways to NOT get in the army. Anyone willing to fight for the Führer is a Nazi

If my nation was under attack, Even if my Nations Leader is a complete arsehole and started the war or not, I would fight to defend the Country and it's people, not the Leader!

What do you think? Seems that a lot of people think that every enlisted men in the German forces was a fanatical Nazi. Your opinion?
Of course not. People saying that, like Purly Euclid/ New Anthrus, are idiots.

does this topic really matter? no. To me and most of the population of the world a German soldier who fought in WWII was a Nazi. There are exceptions of those who were underground Allied sympathizers but a German soldier = Nazi. I think the same applies to an Axis solider = fascist or some extreme faction that is pro-fascist.

Then you and most of the population are wrong!

German soldier were just that: Soldiers. They fought and died for their homeland, and those few who remain as veteran deserve respect. Naziism was a politcal structure that caused the death of millions including quite a few innocent (I do include the allied bombing here).

Little clue kiddies: War is hell for all involved, but especially for those accounted for under "collateral damage"

In most wars people will rally behind their leaders. Some fight for ideology, some fight because they like to fight out of a lust for violence, some fight for money or glory, some fight because they have to, some fight to defend their homes and families.

I doubt the average Joe German at the time of WWII was that different. Some of them fought for ideology, some faought because they liked to fight, some fought for money or glory, some fought because they had to and some fought to defend their homes and families.

does this topic really matter? no. To me and most of the population of the world a German soldier who fought in WWII was a Nazi. There are exceptions of those who were underground Allied sympathizers but a German soldier = Nazi. I think the same applies to an Axis solider = fascist or some extreme faction that is pro-fascist.So the thinking of the world is what defines the truth? Then the equation "US soldier = uneducated torturer and slaughterer of innocent civilians" would also be true?

There are ways to NOT get in the army. Anyone willing to fight for the Führer is a Nazi

Idiot, get a brain and learn something:

If the question is, how large part of the Wehrmacht were Nazis. I believe that as soldiers, they believed in their country and its leadership. As most of the population in most countries, for those who called themselves convinced national socialists, they believed in part of the programme – not all of it, as it has been elaborated earlier in this thread by referring to Democrats and Republicans. As earlier mentioned, convinced national socialists could also be people who wanted entrusted jobs – they did this out of convenience, not belief, which is normal in all dictatorships. If you consider national socialist believers people who believe in all the basic foundations of national socialism, then please read the following:


NSDAP – National Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (German National Socialist Worker’s Party)

The background of the party is to be found in the economic crisis in the late 1920ies and 1930ies. Germany’s defeat in World War I and subsequent damage payments under the Versailles treaty, and the subsequent outbreak of revolutionary activity in various parts of the country greatly intensified the effects of the crisis. The establishment of the democratic “Weimar Republic” did not succeed in restoring national self-confidence.

One of the numerous small groups and sects making up the opposition was NSDAP.

National Socialism was not grounded in a well-formulated ideology. Its underlying ideas included such abstruse and contradictory doctrines as the following: The Nordic master race was created to rule over inferior races, especially the Jews; there should be a pan-German unification i.e. the gathering of all persons of German blood into a greater German Reich; the Fuhrer is the mystical embodiment of the Third Reich; National Socialism supersedes Marxist international socialism; the medieval corporatist society and a German tribal society of peasants should serve as paradigms for the Third Reich. In fact, the ideas of National Socialism were developed in the late 19th and early 20th Century by conservative and populist ideologies, who idealized the German Volk (people). Among the theoretical contributors were the French racial theorist count de Gobineau, Richard Wagner’s English son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Nietzschean and racial fanatic Julius Langbehn, the conservative nationalist Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, the historian and political philosopher Oswald Spengler, and the writer Ernst Junger as well as Heinrich von Treitschke and lots of influence came from the US that also had lots of writers and right wing politicians that adored those princips, in fact a lot of the Nazi doctrine is based on the US racial laws in the 30ties. These and other writers adapted, and often corrupted, earlier romantic and conservative philosophies by mixing them with Darwinist, imperialist and populist notions. Hitler believed that these ideas could become politically effective only if their negative and hostile qualities were emphasized. IN Hitler’s hands the ideas of these writers became anti-ideas: anti-Marxist, anti-Liberal, anti-Humanist, anti-Democratic and above all anti-Semitic. The anti-semitic element were the main difference between the national socialism and facism in Italy and Spain. The NSDAP expansionism was linked to the geopolitical theories of Karl Haushofer. Hitler developed propaganda techniques for instituting his doctrines. Instead of trying to convert the German people by reason, he exhorted them in emotional harangues and provided them with symbols of National Socialism – uniforms, flags, the swastika emblem. Ideas were transformed into myths and were used to trigger activity and violence. Thus in National Socialism, ideology, propaganda and action tended to merge.


Probably very few soldiers of the Wehrmacht would adhere fully to all the above principles!

If you add to the philosophy the economic achievements of the national socialists in a period of severe economic crisis, you would find an explanation for the popularity of Hitler and the national socialist party in Germany:

Between 1933 and 1936, the German GDP increased by an annual average rate of 9.5%, and the same rate for industrial output growth was 17.2%. Full employment was reached from an unemployment peak of 29.9% in 1932. However fragile and long-term unsustainable these economic results may have been, for the ordinary Germans this was little less than a miracle.

US problem (specially now, with the anti EU and Germany or France or anyone that opposes Bush, propaganda) is thatmovies previews and documentaries about German Wehrmacht soldiers are summed up to the term "Nazi"...

Hollywood has always had a long reputation of historical ignorance. Watch the movies for the action and the plot, not as a history lesson, I suppose.

Nazi Germany = Nazi government, German Army
Saddam Iraq = Baathist government, Iraqi Army
Republican US = Republicans in power, US Army

Main premise
X joins German Army = X is Nazi (Supports Hitler)

Implication
Z joins Iraqi Army = Z is Baathist (Saddam supporter)
Y joins US Army = Y is a Republican (Bush supporter)

Doesn't really work!

Y joins US Army = Y is a Republican (Bush supporter)

:D
that's hilarious!

the term 'nazi' is now used to equal 'evil' in the US, when in fact it only means a person who joined the national socialist party.
big difference, but i think it's going in the same direction as labelling all arab people 'terrorists'.

US problem (specially now, with the anti EU and Germany or France or anyone that opposes Bush, propaganda) is thatmovies previews and documentaries about German Wehrmacht soldiers are summed up to the term "Nazi"...

Hollywood has always had a long reputation of historical ignorance. Watch the movies for the action and the plot, not as a history lesson, I suppose.
And to think that many of these movies are financed with German money.

I think that to call every soldier who fought in the SS a Nazi is a failed idea. The SS were the best of the best, hence they were selected for missions where the standard Whermacht might not win. I mean the SS Panzer Divisions were not exactly killing innocent people en mass, nor were the SS infantry divisions. I see where you are coming from though, I mean you could say the same thing about the Marines over the US Army better killers and less humane...Waffen SS as opposed to the SS, there were differences. They were not always the best or the best trained soldiers but were usually the best equiped. Thier position in the scheme of things is a little hard to classify as it changed several times during the existance of Nazi (tm) Germany. Most people associate the SS with the good old Totenkopf (death's head) group which provided the guards for the camps among other things, but the SS encompassed a lot more. There were foreign (conquered) units such as Viking (from scandanavia) and even a cossack unit. A large chunk of the early war SS forces was the Polezidivision, composed as one might guess from cops, and was neither elite to Nazi - not to be confused with the later 4th Polizei Panzergrenadier Division (all Nazi and no cops) or the RHSA (cops, SS but not in the miltary). Nor were all members of the SS members of the Nazi (tm) Party, one of the most famous SS men, Jochiam Peiper (?sp), was an SS officer but not a member of the Nazi (tm) Party, although most were. Nor were all members of the Waffen-SS members of the SS, particularily in the foreign units.

It's amzing how many specialists we have here. Are you all so obsessed with the Nazi-regime?
You should all care more about atrocities commited by CURRENT armies than about those of armies long past.

Waffen SS as opposed to the SS, there were differences. They were not always the best or the best trained soldiers but were usually the best equiped. Thier position in the scheme of things is a little hard to classify as it changed several times during the existance of Nazi (tm) Germany. Most people associate the SS with the good old Totenkopf (death's head) group which provided the guards for the camps among other things, but the SS encompassed a lot more. There were foreign (conquered) units such as Viking (from scandanavia) and even a cossack unit. A large chunk of the early war SS forces was the Polezidivision, composed as one might guess from cops, and was neither elite to Nazi - not to be confused with the later 4th Polizei Panzergrenadier Division (all Nazi and no cops) or the RHSA (cops, SS but not in the miltary). Nor were all members of the SS members of the Nazi (tm) Party, one of the most famous SS men, Jochiam Peiper (?sp), was an SS officer but not a member of the Nazi (tm) Party, although most were. Nor were all members of the Waffen-SS members of the SS, particularily in the foreign units.

Yeah sorry I didn't really go into many details, which is odd because I have a Waffen SS Book right beside me lol.

Yeah sorry I didn't really go into many details, which is odd because I have a Waffen SS Book right beside me lol.
Why would anybody need such a book?

Why would anybody need such a book?

Because some of us study history, good or bad, we also hope that events like such never happen again.

Why would anybody need such a book?
To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist, there are thousands of other non racist legitimate historians who are interested in our past. Why are you so opposed to other people pursuing their personal interests? We have had countless discussions of Bush policy here in the forum and the world is not going to end if some people get together to talk about something other than George W. Bush. And reading about history does not mean one doesn't care about what is going on in the world today. History inclined people are most likely even more interested in modern world events than other people.

To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist, there are thousands of other non racist legitimate historians who are interested in our past. Why are you so opposed to other people pursuing their personal interests? We have had countless discussions of Bush policy here in the forum and the world is not going to end if some people get together to talk about something other than George W. Bush.

Of course...I'm a big evil Racist *Sarcasm*

Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history...dipshit?

Why would anybody need such a book?Because otherwise one might mistakenly come to the belief that SS and Nazi and German were the same, and therefore misapply the lessons of history.

To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist [...]

Please elaborate why Austrealite is racist.

. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist, .

Mind your dirty tongue, just because Austrealite is a Democrate and you a right wing republican (I guess), it does not give you the right to call him a Nazi, specially since the republican party and people like the Bush familly had realy tight links with prominent Nazis.

.

If my nation was under attack, Even if my Nations Leader is a complete arsehole and started the war or not, I would fight to defend the Country and it's people, not the Leader!
Except that they were aggressors and not defenders

Of course...I'm a big evil Racist *Sarcasm*
Your are a white nationalist by your own admission... in your other posts you support the ridiculous Anglo-Israelite theory used by the KKK.

Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history...dipshit?
That question made no sense.

Your are a white nationalist by your own admission... in your other posts you support the ridiculous Anglo-Israelite theory used by the KKK.




Anthebellum, can you post a link to that, please? It seems so un Austrealite, you know. Just wonder. Or did you have had a bit to much Israel versus the palestines or Isreal versus human rights discussions? You were pro Israel (?) and he was pro human rights (?)

Your are a white nationalist by your own admission... in your other posts you support the ridiculous Anglo-Israelite theory used by the KKK.


That question made no sense.

No, see a White Nationalist, for the most parts hates other races, never did I preach this hate. And the Anglo-Israelite theory isn't rediculous, I know many people who believe it but also teach that getting into heaven will be based on Skin Colour - this I do not teach, nor condone. For no man, women or child is locked out of Heaven if he or she believe in YHWH and Yahsha.

I have no interest in the KKK or any of their evil views. I don't condone any action that they do or any words they say.

And sue me, I put the ? in the wrong spot...

The Wehrmacht soldiers Nazis? No, I don't think so... it was those bloody Luftwaffe pilots, wasn't it!

Anthebellum, can you post a link to that, please? It seems so un Austrealite, you know. Just wonder. Or did you have had a bit to much Israel versus the palestines or Isreal versus human rights discussions? You were pro Israel (?) and he was pro human rights (?)

I am pro-human rights, but also anti-Israel in the sence I don't believe it should be there. There was hardly a claim for its creation and all it did was further strain tensions between the Arab world and the West. Not to mention the millions of Palestinians who are now refugees..

Except that they were aggressors and not defenders

I probably should have expanded on that, I mean that I wouldn't join up if we were going to fight another Nation, but say my nation goes and starts a war with another nation if that nation attacks my nation and invades I would fight back...to defend my family, my friends, and my country.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6946913&highlight=anglo-israelite#post6946913

I am not a Palestinians, they are just as bad as the Jews. I am a Anglo-Israelite, one of the true descendants of Israel.

These Israelites are found in Europe, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc and are commonly called Caucasian because of the name given to the Israelites when they were taken captive over the Caustaus Mountains.

To be fair, I haven't seen you make any blatantly white supremacist statements. However I can strongly infer that you are a white nationalist because of your lengthy discussions about what "White" is, and the fact that the various Anglo-Israelite theories are pseudo-history associated with groups like Aryan Nations or KKK. If you want to clarify your position and prove that you are not a racist then I'll apologize for making a false accusation.

No, see a White Nationalist, for the most parts hates other races, never did I preach this hate. And the Anglo-Israelite theory isn't rediculous, I know many people who believe it but also teach that getting into heaven will be based on Skin Colour - this I do not teach, nor condone. For no man, women or child is locked out of Heaven if he or she believe in YHWH and Yahsha.

I have no interest in the KKK or any of their evil views. I don't condone any action that they do or any words they say.

And sue me, I put the ? in the wrong spot...
Ok, then I apologize for thinking you are a racialist. However the vast majority of people who subscribe to the Anglo-Israelite theory are white separatists, so it was highly logical that you would be one, considering your strong anti-Zionist views and other posts discussing "whiteness"

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6946913&highlight=anglo-israelite#post6946913

To be fair, I haven't seen you make any blatantly white supremacist statements. However I can strongly infer that you are a white nationalist because of your lengthy discussions about what "White" is, and the fact that the various Anglo-Israelite theories are pseudo-history associated with groups like Aryan Nations or KKK. If you want to clarify your position and prove that you are not a racist then I'll apologize for making a false accusation.

I'll be honest; I believe the Israylites moved north after captivity, and entered Britain and set up shop. I mean if you look at it in the ways of the Prophecies they are interesting, and only a select few Nations have really fulfilled them - America and Britain.

I can't really make an excuse for the whole KKK, and Aryan Nations having a similar view, but notice they spread hate about other Races, which I do not, nor would I ever. I have a few friends who believe the same views as me, yet none of them are racist in the slightest. I am not a Racist; in fact I have many friends of different races, Asian, Aborigines and yes even Jews. We all get along fine, they know my view on this as I do not hide it, but am open and honest with everyone I meet.

I have never said any form of racist insult nor attacked anyone physically because of their race, in fact I have only been in one fight with a person of another race, and it was because he threw a sandwich at me, and yeah I would have been pissed at anyone who did that.

I guess I can't really prove to you, I mean you would have to know me to be certain, but I can give you my word, if you believe that, then thank you, if not I won't hold it against you because I can understand your position.

Anthebellum, can you post a link to that, please? It seems so un Austrealite, you know. Just wonder. Or did you have had a bit to much Israel versus the palestines or Isreal versus human rights discussions? You were pro Israel (?) and he was pro human rights (?)

Er, Im not a Republican and I am against Israel. If think I am a neo-con because I accused Austrealite of being a racist then you are incorrect. But oh well, your inference might have been logical when you don't know everything I am thinking about or the posts of Austrealite that I read... no hard feelings, I myself was wrong to infer Austrealite was a racist because of his supporting the Anglo Israelite theory.

And sue me, I put the ? in the wrong spot...
I knew that, but the question still didnt make sense. I don't know what you were after.

Mind your dirty tongue, just because Austrealite is a Democrate and you a right wing republican (I guess), it does not give you the right to call him a Nazi, specially since the republican party and people like the Bush familly had realy tight links with prominent Nazis.

.
Bush sux

I knew that, but the question still didnt make sense. I didn't know what you were after.

Oh where you posted To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist, there are thousands of other non racist legitimate historians who are interested in our past. Why are you so opposed to other people pursuing their personal interests? We have had countless discussions of Bush policy here in the forum and the world is not going to end if some people get together to talk about something other than George W. Bush. And reading about history does not mean one doesn't care about what is going on in the world today. History inclined people are most likely even more interested in modern world events than other people.

I thought I'd use the dipshit part because of when you called me a racist, don't know why, but looks like we both jumped to conclusions...

Oh where you posted To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist, there are thousands of other non racist legitimate historians who are interested in our past. Why are you so opposed to other people pursuing their personal interests? We have had countless discussions of Bush policy here in the forum and the world is not going to end if some people get together to talk about something other than George W. Bush. And reading about history does not mean one doesn't care about what is going on in the world today. History inclined people are most likely even more interested in modern world events than other people.

I thought I'd use the dipshit part because of when you called me a racist, don't know why, but looks like we both jumped to conclusions...
Well then to answer your question "Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history" I say "yes" but I dont know the purpose or context of that quesiton.

Well then to answer your question "Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history" I say "yes" but I dont know the purpose or context of that quesiton.

I think we should probably just leave it, but to respond, Ankher asked why anyone would have such a book.

You responded "To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist"

I responded "Of course...I'm a big evil Racist *Sarcasm*

Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history...dipshit? "

I was just playing on your words, I should have put the ? after history...I mucked up but yeah...just playing on your words.

Anyhoo, I hope we have come to an understanding...

cheers...

I think we should probably just leave it, but to respond, Ankher asked why anyone would have such a book.

You responded "To learn history, dipshit. Although Austrealite reads it because he is a racist"

I responded "Of course...I'm a big evil Racist *Sarcasm*

Did you ever think I had such a book to learn history...dipshit? "

I was just playing on your words, I should have put the ? after history...I mucked up but yeah...just playing on your words.

Anyhoo, I hope we have come to an understanding...

cheers...

Yeah I knew what the question was when you first wrote it, but I just didn't know why it was asked because two posts back you clearly stated you had the book. Oh well no hard feelings... carry on

The german soldier who fought in ww2 was fighting for his country, not for the national socialist cause. The german population and the army, apart from the SS, were completly oblivious to jewish concentration camps. To say that the german soldier=nazi is moronic and ignorant.

Powdia, renowned national socialist activist.

The SS were the fanatics the Wehrmact were the equivalent of the regular army. Most Wehrmacht Generals really did not like the SS.