Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 23rd, 2012, 07:39 PM   #41
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
In Nuremberg three different versions were presented of this speech, L3, PS 789 and PS 1014. The last two were conquered by the US army in 1945 in the OKW HQ. The L3 was published by the journalist Lochner in 1942 and he said to got it from an informer and had brought it from Germany in 1939.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
The PS 789 and 1014 do not contain the Genghis Khan part. So it is very doubtful, that L3 is a true document, at least it is not able to verify the Genghis Khan. So you shouldn't repeat it, as if it is a fact.
There is no mention of Genghis Khan in Antonioni post.

I would like to make a short summary of your “acceptance” of historical facts:
1. The Hitler speech which is generally accepted by historians is not accepted by you because it is showing the true nature of German aggression against Poland.
2. The works of German historian Jochem Bohler is also not acceptable to you because it is contrary to yours believes. You once justified your objection to his works becouse he colled one feldwabel an officer. Great mistake which rendered his work untrustworthy.

Last edited by Edward; January 23rd, 2012 at 07:47 PM.
Edward is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:30 PM   #42
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 583
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
Fighter pilot Feliks Szyszka was shot down over Warsaw at first day of the war. As he hung on his parachute, a German fighter flow back and forth shooting at him. He had 17 bulled wounts in his legs alone. The German pilot was carrying Hitler order enthusiastically. It was probably the first event when victorious pilot shoot at parachuting opponents.
Pilot F.Szyszka survived. After four months in hospital, he escaped and made his way to France when he downed his first Bf-109.
this was the war...but it wasn't luftwaffe speciality..

Molnar Laszlo -25 airvictory-

Lieutenant Laszlo Molnar pilot died at 9th of august 1944. in aircombat.He was able to jump out of his hit messer plane,but the mustang pilot aim and shot the falling parachutist. During the aircombat Janos Nyemecz died exactly the same way.
mofli87 is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:40 PM   #43

bunyip's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,960

Quote:
I'm of the opinion that a lot of people involved in the functioning of the Third Reich went to their graves denying any culpability, e.g. Albert Speer.
Not sure what you mean.


At the Nuremberg trials, Speer was the ONLY high ranking Nazi to admit guilt and express remorse. His attitude probably saved his. It is arguable just how sincere he was.I suspect not at all..
bunyip is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2012, 09:00 PM   #44
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 583
Blog Entries: 2

However the majority of the fighters were good guys in my opinion.

There was an aircombat over Hungary (summer 1944) when a hungarian M109 caught fire but the pilot didn't notice it and continued the fight with the americans. A US pilot (Horace S. Hudson) flew next to the burning plane and showed him to catapulte, as the pilot realised he said thanks and catapulted but his plane started to dive so quickly that it crashed the us plane whose pilot died. There is a monument remembering him at Segesd honouring him and some other gallant pilots of ww2.
mofli87 is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2012, 11:52 PM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frog33inUK View Post
I have read some of the previous posts in this thread, but I would like to add a family story to the debate, only to give some perspective.

My grand-parents were 14 and 15 when the Germans invaded France.........
This was the main behaviour, especially before the landing of the Allies in the Normandie. Later we had some incidents like Oradour e.g., especilly during the increase of maquis actions.
I remember stories e.g. were the French were absoluteley astonished, when German soldiers asked for their bill and I have such notice as well in my grandfather's diary, when he wrote, "went out for luch, ...for coffee..., the prize was .... francs". But the war in the west was completely different to the one in the east or on the balkans.
beorna is offline  
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:21 AM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post

There is no mention of Genghis Khan in Antonioni post.

I would like to make a short summary of your “acceptance” of historical facts:
1. The Hitler speech which is generally accepted by historians is not accepted by you because it is showing the true nature of German aggression against Poland.
2. The works of German historian Jochem Bohler is also not acceptable to you because it is contrary to yours believes. You once justified your objection to his works becouse he colled one feldwabel an officer. Great mistake which rendered his work untrustworthy.
No, Antonina (I suppose you mean her) does not mention Genghis Khan. But if you would have an idea about what you are talking or at least would try to inform yourself, you can see, that Genghis Khan is part of the speech given by Antonina. She just led the sentences before her quote away. You can as well read Gorques post for it.
"From DRZW VI/I, Part 1, Page 41 Quote:
This document was not submitted in evidence to the I.M.T. in Nuremberg. These intentions, however, were partly identical with the 'ethnic ideological struggle' with which Hitler had charged the special-action squads of the S.S. and the S.D., as well as some Party intimates. "

So to your 1) L3 is not verified and probably a fake.
To your 2) If he would just be wrong because he can't differentiate between a sergeant and an officer, it wouldn't be so bad. But it is not his only mistake as I had already told you. But nevertheless I think, that military basics wouldn't be so bad, if you speak about the military!

I can summarize his mistake for you again, allthough i am not confident it will help.
+Böhler's thesis is disputed and mainly refuted.

+He discovered a relation of motivational, situational and psychological factors, that "aid and abet an uninhibited readiness to use violence". He attested the Wehrmacht, that she was during the polish campaign inexperienced and psychological exhausted. Nevertheless he didn't care in his conclusion about this.

+He attested the German soldier a "franctireur delusion".
-But what he is not exploring is, if there were franctireurs!
-Böhler as well did not cast a glance on the chaos of the polish mobilisation

+He is using unheedingly communist post-war literature.

+He palliates polish crimes during the campaign or excuses them merely as retaliation.

+For the pogroms among the german population he gives a very small number and follows here eastern post-war sources again. And he mentioned it only in a foot note.

+He speaks about the 3rd battalion of the 1st company
+He speaks about the commander of the 2nd company instead of chief. +He is calling a sergeant a responsible officer
.....There are some more mistakes of that kind.

+Because Böhler cannot give too much verified incidents, he adds some war crimes from the Russian campaign, but here again some of them are uncertain.

+Böhler mentioned as well, that only a few jewish POWs survived WWII. What he is not telling us is, that a lot of these people were deported to the Ghettos and died here under civilian controll. for the murder of jewish civilians he has three incidents, but not all verified.

+For Böhler the trials of german court martial have no importance and he is not using the court papers.
+ he is not giving complaints of Wehrmacht administrative bodies or officers.
+He is not mentioning speeches of Hitler like " my generals are in political affairs (this means the ethnic cleansing by the Einsatzgruppen) sometimes like children" or "that in the conquered territories measures will be implemented, which will not be to their liking and that they should not mess with things, but shall limit themselves to military duties".
beorna is offline  
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:26 AM   #47

antonina's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 6,304
Blog Entries: 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
No, Antonina (I suppose you mean her) does not mention Genghis Khan.
Flattered to have been taken for the famous movie director (he was a terrible bore, though, I'd prefer Fellini)

How nice to see you two are at it again . The forum was getting kind of tame.

Last edited by antonina; January 24th, 2012 at 12:39 AM.
antonina is offline  
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:38 AM   #48
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

[
Quote:
QUOTE=beorna;907800]
"From DRZW VI/I, Part 1, Page 41 Quote:
This document was not submitted in evidence to the I.M.T. in Nuremberg. These intentions, however, were partly identical with the 'ethnic ideological struggle' with which Hitler had charged the special-action squads of the S.S. and the S.D., as well as some Party intimates. "

QUOTE]
Yes it was not used. And according to you it should be used in a trial against whom? Hitler? He was dead. I could not be used against Generals as they did not issue these directives. So what you want to prove?
Edward is offline  
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:40 AM   #49
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by antonina View Post
Flattered to be have been taken for the famous movie director (he was a terrible bore, though, I'd prefer Fellini)

How nice to see you two are at it again . The forum was getting kind of tame.
Sorry, Antonina, same nsdty gremlin must be living in my keyboard
haw was the holiday?
Edward is offline  
Old January 24th, 2012, 01:19 AM   #50
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
No, Antonina (I suppose you mean her) does not mention Genghis Khan. But if you would have an idea about what you are talking or at least would try to inform yourself, you can see, that Genghis Khan is part of the speech given by Antonina. She just led the sentences before her quote away. You can as well read Gorques post for it.
"From DRZW VI/I, Part 1, Page 41 Quote:
This document was not submitted in evidence to the I.M.T. in Nuremberg. These intentions, however, were partly identical with the 'ethnic ideological struggle' with which Hitler had charged the special-action squads of the S.S. and the S.D., as well as some Party intimates. "

So to your 1) L3 is not verified and probably a fake.
To your 2) If he would just be wrong because he can't differentiate between a sergeant and an officer, it wouldn't be so bad. But it is not his only mistake as I had already told you. But nevertheless I think, that military basics wouldn't be so bad, if you speak about the military!

I can summarize his mistake for you again, allthough i am not confident it will help.
+Böhler's thesis is disputed and mainly refuted.

+He discovered a relation of motivational, situational and psychological factors, that "aid and abet an uninhibited readiness to use violence". He attested the Wehrmacht, that she was during the polish campaign inexperienced and psychological exhausted. Nevertheless he didn't care in his conclusion about this.

+He attested the German soldier a "franctireur delusion".
-But what he is not exploring is, if there were franctireurs!
-Böhler as well did not cast a glance on the chaos of the polish mobilisation

+He is using unheedingly communist post-war literature.

+He palliates polish crimes during the campaign or excuses them merely as retaliation.

+For the pogroms among the german population he gives a very small number and follows here eastern post-war sources again. And he mentioned it only in a foot note.

+He speaks about the 3rd battalion of the 1st company
+He speaks about the commander of the 2nd company instead of chief. +He is calling a sergeant a responsible officer
.....There are some more mistakes of that kind.

+Because Böhler cannot give too much verified incidents, he adds some war crimes from the Russian campaign, but here again some of them are uncertain.

+Böhler mentioned as well, that only a few jewish POWs survived WWII. What he is not telling us is, that a lot of these people were deported to the Ghettos and died here under civilian controll. for the murder of jewish civilians he has three incidents, but not all verified.

+For Böhler the trials of german court martial have no importance and he is not using the court papers.
+ he is not giving complaints of Wehrmacht administrative bodies or officers.
+He is not mentioning speeches of Hitler like " my generals are in political affairs (this means the ethnic cleansing by the Einsatzgruppen) sometimes like children" or "that in the conquered territories measures will be implemented, which will not be to their liking and that they should not mess with things, but shall limit themselves to military duties".
Perhaps he also stated wrong size of boots of same unterofficer? Be serious, Beorna. For all this Bohler was awarded departmental prize of University of Cologne for his work “Wehrmacht war crimes in Poland” You have a very incompetent University Professors in Germany if they give such prize for job you called “junk”.
He is also member Committee for History of WWII but they are also very inept people if they allow him to be a member of such committee. How could they do that for “junky” writer, Beorna?
And as you obviously know better than Bholer so you perhaps could say how many German was killed in, what you call “pogroms” . Where-name the place and tell us your version? Please compare them with the number of Poles killed by their German neighbors. Please do not use the word ‘Pogrom” as you are offending the Jewish victims of such incidents. Please state facts so I can answer your insinuation. Of course there were German civilian victim in September 1939, its true, but their number was relatively low in comparison to murdered Poles. German “civilians” very more often than not, a bands of armed V columnist.
Edward is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
innocent, wehrmacht



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wehrmacht Memory HistoryBuffBenjamin War and Military History 23 April 28th, 2014 08:35 AM
Methamphetamines and the Wehrmacht bigscreeninkster War and Military History 17 July 4th, 2011 11:53 AM
Movies about Wehrmacht HistoryBuffBenjamin General History 13 March 15th, 2010 02:13 AM
Innocent Civilians oldnavyguy Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 October 3rd, 2008 05:50 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.