Third Reich at War

[LarryHW.]

Just read The Third Reich at War, by Richard Evans. This book, which came out at the end of 2008, is a must read for anyone with a serious interest in World War II. The book is well researched, readable and effective in painting a picture of Germany during World War II, including the political and military leadership and average Germans, especially after it was clear, from 1942 onward, that Germany had no hope of winning the war.

[pasoleati]

I wouldn´t touch anything by Evans with a thousand yard pole. Politically correct double standard fellow from A to O available for hire.

[LarryHW.]

Third Reich at War

What does Evans describe in this book that you think is untrue or inaccurate?

I wouldn´t touch anything by Evans with a thousand yard pole. Politically correct double standard fellow from A to O available for hire.

[Woolgar]

Well I loved that book! I couldnt put it down

Nick

[pasoleati]

Larry, the overall attitude is the main problem from which every lesser problem emanates. In short, for mr. Evans historians job is not to tell the reader how it was and nothing more, nothing less while maintaining a totally neutral stance. For him and his likes, historian is a propagandist whose mission is the support of various political agendas, that being the so called "Western values" at the moment. Just like the attitude of bolsheviks for whom anything that served the revolution was true and anything else was false.

[LarryHW.]

What and whose political agendas is he supporting? A historian is not just a reporter. Any serious historian can and does draw conlusions from facts. David Irving certainly does not meet the standard you have set out. If you look at the various clips of his appearances, which are readily available on You Tube, you will see that he has a clear agenda of his own. I suspect the real issue is you may agree with Mr. Irving's beliefs and values rather than what you percieve are those of Mr. Evans.

And then there is the larger question...what is there to be neutral about? What serious and balanced person today can be either approving or non-judgmental about systematic mass murder and brutal racsim? Who, looking at the facts of those years, can seriously claim that when the Nazi's ideology and actions became state policy, they did not spiritually and materially corrupt a part of German society? Who can seriously deny that Nazi ideology blinded Hitler and his team to basic truths and realities and placed Germany solidly on the road to defeat by late 1941-early 1942?

Larry, the overall attitude is the main problem from which every lesser problem emanates. In short, for mr. Evans historians job is not to tell the reader how it was and nothing more, nothing less while maintaining a totally neutral stance. For him and his likes, historian is a propagandist whose mission is the support of various political agendas, that being the so called "Western values" at the moment. Just like the attitude of bolsheviks for whom anything that served the revolution was true and anything else was false.

[pasoleati]

Larry, you are obviously viewing history through coloured glasses. For example, why should one be a moralizing bastard over the murders committed by the NS people while it is perfectly OK to be non-jedgemental over the murder of Indians by the American people? I see absolutely no substantial difference between those NS people who believed that they have the absolute truth behind them and everyone else is inferior to those Americans who were wiping out Indians with gusto in the name of the bible and Judeo-Calvinist capitalistic greed while believing that they were doing the God´s handiwork and that Indians were inferior and thus to be disposed of without scruples. In fact, that period is still corrupting the American society as it still hails as true American heroes people like George Custer and Kit Carson. Yet, Kit Carson excelled in tactics like destroying navajo wells and crops so that the Navajo wom,en and children would starve and force them to either become slaves of the Carsonians or die. Mr. Custer´s wife was atrue humanitarian in the above tradition as she urged her husband to join the expedition to destroy more Indians simply because "there was a recession in the East and the economy needed a boost". So, by killing another bunch of savages the conomy got a nice boost. So humane! Similar think was well evident in 1964 when some bunch of greedy American oil company reps invaded native territory in the Amazonian rain forest. When a tribe rose to resist with bows and arrows, these true American heroes radioed the nearest Us airbase for an airsrtike. It came and the brave American heroes in their kites dropped napalm all over the native village killing mostly women and children in a most horrific manner. Why? So that American oil companies could have freedom to suck more oil. As long as you Larry represent a nation that has acted so brutally just to further its economic interests while commtiing the most complete genocide in history (in less than 150 years hundreds of unique cultures and people wiped out of existence) you have absolutely no moral high ground to be judgemental on anything. Clean your own house first.

[leib1]

Well said Pasoleati !!!

[kale010]

Wow...... what a climax when somebody just wants to say the he read a nice book...

[LarryHW.]

From what you wrote, I think you clearly feel what was done to the Indians was wrong. It seems that it is not so much a desire for being neutral that you want, as to point out that other nations have done bad things. It is true that the US did not treat Native Americans well, and many were killed. It was also a situation where America did not live up to its ideals or the words of its leadership. Very few in America today would disagree with that. In fact, that failure is acknowledged as a matter of government policy, law and popular opinion. (The actions of Nazi Germany fully reflected the stated ideals and aims of the Nazi government and leadership.) I don't really think you are "neutral" about how Native Americans were treated--in fact I sense you feel very strongly. Even if everything you say is accepted, it still does not support being "neutral" about Nazi Germany. Both actions were wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Final point re: the book--It was well written and the author's main points are well supported by a vast body of pretty clear historical evidence. That, when all is said and done, is the true test of a solid work of history.

Larry, you are obviously viewing history through coloured glasses. For example, why should one be a moralizing bastard over the murders committed by the NS people while it is perfectly OK to be non-jedgemental over the murder of Indians by the American people? I see absolutely no substantial difference between those NS people who believed that they have the absolute truth behind them and everyone else is inferior to those Americans who were wiping out Indians with gusto in the name of the bible and Judeo-Calvinist capitalistic greed while believing that they were doing the God´s handiwork and that Indians were inferior and thus to be disposed of without scruples. In fact, that period is still corrupting the American society as it still hails as true American heroes people like George Custer and Kit Carson. Yet, Kit Carson excelled in tactics like destroying navajo wells and crops so that the Navajo wom,en and children would starve and force them to either become slaves of the Carsonians or die. Mr. Custer´s wife was atrue humanitarian in the above tradition as she urged her husband to join the expedition to destroy more Indians simply because "there was a recession in the East and the economy needed a boost". So, by killing another bunch of savages the conomy got a nice boost. So humane! Similar think was well evident in 1964 when some bunch of greedy American oil company reps invaded native territory in the Amazonian rain forest. When a tribe rose to resist with bows and arrows, these true American heroes radioed the nearest Us airbase for an airsrtike. It came and the brave American heroes in their kites dropped napalm all over the native village killing mostly women and children in a most horrific manner. Why? So that American oil companies could have freedom to suck more oil. As long as you Larry represent a nation that has acted so brutally just to further its economic interests while commtiing the most complete genocide in history (in less than 150 years hundreds of unique cultures and people wiped out of existence) you have absolutely no moral high ground to be judgemental on anything. Clean your own house first.

[UnknownSoldier]

Apparently, pasoleati has no idea that his innocent indians had a long brutal history of slaughtering men, woman & children to the last person ,,, Whole villages, and made infamous the barbaric, deadly torture ritual called "scalping".
Europeans, both French & British, were often the ones encouraging and instigating these wholesale murders, threatening to turn the savages lose if immediate surrender was not forthcoming.
Once the Europeans were ejected from influence in the affairs of the USA, naturally all of this did not magically recede from mens memories, and there were indeed scores to settle with these primitive tribes.

Far from being "wiped out", they are doing quite well today, with their own laws, lands and tax free gambling/alcohol/tobacco operations, so you can rest your weeping heart at ease.

Best to gain a little perspective before climbing up to the soapbox, and yes, he does appear to be a Nazi apologist, seeking to minimize their incomparable slaughters by saying "other people killed too, including you".

[kale010]

Damn, I gotta read that book. It will teach me about the indians as well

[PANZER332]

YEAH , BLAME THE NAZIS FOR ALL THE CRIMES , THE ALLIES DIDN'T KILL ANYONE WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS

[Curt Steinbach]

Larry is right in that two wrongs don't make a right. It can be taken far further than that when one considers the fact that humans are not exactly the most peacefull species this planet has seen so we can look far beyond the TR or the US. It's thanks to those predilictions that forums like this exist if you think about it. Whether it be tribal warfare, European expansion or importing people to exploit, I think we can all agree that there have been many injustices perpetrated throughout history.

As far as scalping goes I believe it is often accepted that settlers that came to North America introduced the practice to the natives. Later many colonies/states offered bounties for native scalps.

By the way, I thought the book was quite good.

[UnknownSoldier]

As far as scalping goes I believe it is often accepted that settlers that came to North America introduced the practice to the natives. Later many colonies/states offered bounties for native scalps.

I said the indians made it infamous, not that they invented the grisly practice.
They used it on a far larger scale, including on woman & children, than thankfully had ever been known before, so they deserve a degree of infamy for adopting such a barbaric practice as a common tactic - And naturally, it is a good point to bring up when someone like pasoleati comes along moaning that the indians were innocent, helpless babes in the woods, set upon for no good reason by remorseless, genocidal maniacs.
They were far from innocent or helpless, and it can be said that they used the weapons and tactics available to them, and those against them used the weapons and tactics available to them - And history records which side came out on top.

Its easy to see how perspective & facts get warped with time, in the days of the untamed frontier, with the bloody slaughter of families and whole settlements fresh in mens minds, they naturally were not so charitable, and strove to deal with the menace the only way possible - By brute force.

Enough of that.
When it comes to books, the only way to make up ones mind is to read yourself.
Just like movie reviews, I've heard movie reviews that were terrible, and I liked it ,, Or heard raving reviews, and thought it was moronic drivel.
I never heard of the guy, if its at my library I'll certainly give it a whirl.