Hellstorm: The Death Of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 [Hardcover]

[Chris Boonzaier]

oh no no no i m not getting into the is Sajer the real deal thing i suppose its an individual choice ,there seems to be many fierce arguements either way , and i don t know whether the officer in question IS senile

A key word in there ;-)

After decades of GD vets apparently did not think it was real, now a 95 year old, in the age where the Jedi Mind trick works really well, decides it is good... the defenders jump on that!

Anyway, this is a tired old argument... noone disputes allied soldiers raped and murdered... both Russian and western. They even raped their friends. Reported rape by GIs in England the estimated number of rapes was 2,420, France 3,620... so logically their actions would not be different in enemy territory?

For some reason I think a book about the rape and murder of British and French woman by allied soldiers would cause less fuss amongst some collectors than a book dealing with rape and murder of German women?

An objective work would simply compare rape/Murder/destruction caused by both sides during the war... and never forget ... "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

Its a strange world we live in...

[pasoleati]

A key word in there ;-)


"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

Considering that war was not illegal, at least if practiced by the more equal, the above logic is perverse. Plus that to be really valid and honest, then the whole history of mankind should be taken into account and that is something many wouldn't like as it e.g. British behaviour in India (=brutal oppression of local dissidence) or the genocide of North American Indians come into play.

One key factor worth pondering is that why most wars the US has been involved in have been so fanatic? For example, one should compare the Crimean War and the American Civil War. The brutality demonstrated in the latter was completely unheard of in the former.

In WW2 some 50 % of all dead were civilians. In WW1 less than 10 % of dead were civilians.

[Chris Boonzaier]

In WW2 some 50 % of all dead were civilians. In WW1 less than 10 % of dead were civilians.

One was a war of movement, one was largely static. you can easily work civilians into a battlefield scene in a WW2 movie... not so for WW1.

You cannot introduce wholesale bombing of civilians .. then complain when the enemy does it back. You cannot rape/murder and pillage through Eastern Europe/Russia then complain when the Russians lose it and totally go overboard when they march back through their own destroyed country... then get into enemy territory. it is not "Nice" .. but then neither is mankind.

Not directed at anyone on this thread, but there are too many collectors who say "Why dont the jews just give it a rest with their recriminations,.... it is all past history"... then 10 minutes later are fuming at how barbaric the Russian soldiers were in Eastern Germany.... it is a bit of a double standard.

If I am not mistaken, there were 125 000 German civilians killed by the russians, but 13 000 000 Russians killed by the Germans? Maybe the Rusiian books just dont get translated, but the Russians seem to have gotten over it....

[Chris Boonzaier]

P.S. In the west, horrible as it may have been for all women involved... the UK and France were US allies, and had about 5 000 women raped... Germany had about 12 000... so it does not seem to have been just a blind attack on nazi's? More like a discipline problem combined with opportunity?

Luckily the US had a death penalty for that, which the Russians did not have. I dont think the Brits had a death penalty and cannot find a statistic for rapes by British soldiers

IM (as always humble) opinion, as soon as the last WW2er has been buried its time to forgive and forget... We cannot forgive and forget on behalf of the people who were there... but we can say enough is enough for those who were not.

The world has too many things that are dragged on from generation to generation... "i hate him because his great grandfather slapped my greatgrandfather... so we will never be friends..."

[Herr Lyppe]

I really don't believe that this is simply about highlighting or bemoaning the plight of the Germanic people above any others. People are people, and there is a definite deficiency in the reporting of the crimes by Allied Forces as opposed to those of the Axis. For myself, this is more about that gross discrepancy in reporting and evaluating available 'facts' for myself.
There are psychopaths and rapists in every nation and considering many German Military policies are comparable to those of the British and American Forces in dealing with this kind of conduct, there comes a point where you need to ask why this imbalance exists. Unlike most other nations, Soviet Forces turned a blind eye, and in many cases promoted, the systematic rape of women in occupied territories.

There's no doubt that enough time has passed for the world to come to terms with everything that has happened, but this needs to be across the board. This effort to perpetuate ignorance of facts that conflict with the generally accepted versions of events will never help the resolution of anything.
Is it right that a nation can hang soldiers from lamp posts by their legs en masse and burn them alive? Only if they're German.
Is it right that an 18 year old boy can be watched by millions on television as he bled to death after being shot? Only if he's German.
Are a people forced to pay reparations for the crimes of past, or present, governments for 100 odd years? Only if they're German.

That subsequent generations still suffer the stigma of these events makes the distance in time irrelevant.

No! The Jewish community should not be expected to just 'get over it', and nor should any other people. Although surely the world's at a place where we can accept that the genocide of any people, whether black, white or Jewish, is a terrible thing irrespective of numbers. The misinformation and suppression does not make it any more so.

Personally, I'm more than happy to see this kind of information published. It demonstrates a world preparedness to accept the realities it discloses rather than a desire to suppress it, and permits every individual the chance to establish their own moral truth.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Is it right that a nation can hang soldiers from lamp posts ? Only if they're German.... or anyone who looked like a partisan in occupied territory?


Is it right that an 18 year old boy can be watched by millions on television as he bled to death after being shot? Only if he's German... or palastinian, or Somewhere in Africa... or just about anywhere in occupied areas in WW2...


Are a people forced to pay reparations for the crimes of past, or present, governments for 100 odd years? Only if they're German.... Or British, who have just finished paying Lend Lease about a decade ago.

Sorry ... While I sympathise with individual people (German, French or Russian) who did nothing wrong but were still horribly treated, nations that start a war like WW2 simply have it coming to them.

Or are we going to reboot the "Just who WERE the baddies in WW2" argument again? :-)

Just incase anyone forgets just who the Baddies were...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

[Chris Boonzaier]

"One junior officer boasted of what he and his men did to a woman they thought was a spy: 'We beat her on the tits with a stick, clobbered her on the arse with a pistol, then all eight of us had her, then we threw her out and as she lay there, we threw grenades at her.

'She didn't half scream when they went off!' Even one fellow officer, was sickened by the telling of the tale and said; 'Gentlemen, this is too much to bear.'"


Here is a new book which came out last year.... secret recordings of POWs.... and I am not saying it justifies anything Allied soldiers did... but this "Only if he is German" argument really holds no water.... I was suprised to read comments in the "clean" campaign in France 1940 of shooting women and children...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oners-war.html

[nomis]

Hellstorm

This thread WAS about a book which tells of a particular period in history.

It seems now to be developing into a competition to see who can post the most idiotic comments.

If you wish to take the moral high-ground......................better beware. Do not judge others by your own standards and learn from the mistakes and downright evil behaviour of mankind. Past and present.

Its very easy to make ,frankly, short-sighted comments when you did not live through the experience, probably never will and are sat in front of your computer keyboard.

If you wish to be reminded of how savage anyone can become given the right set of circumstances, then read the book. If not, and you want to read rip-roaring exciting fiction, then don't.

S.

[Chris Boonzaier]

If not, and you want to read rip-roaring exciting fiction, then don't.

S.

Well... they did quote "the forgotten soldier"....

[Chris Boonzaier]

If not, and you want to read rip-roaring exciting fiction, then don't.

S.

Well... they did quote "the forgotten soldier"....

[pasoleati]

One was a war of movement, one was largely static. you can easily work civilians into a battlefield scene in a WW2 movie... not so for WW1.

You cannot introduce wholesale bombing of civilians .. then complain when the enemy does it back. You cannot rape/murder and pillage through Eastern Europe/Russia then complain when the Russians lose it and totally go overboard when they march back through their own destroyed country... then get into enemy territory. it is not "Nice" .. but then neither is mankind.

Not directed at anyone on this thread, but there are too many collectors who say "Why dont the jews just give it a rest with their recriminations,.... it is all past history"... then 10 minutes later are fuming at how barbaric the Russian soldiers were in Eastern Germany.... it is a bit of a double standard.

If I am not mistaken, there were 125 000 German civilians killed by the russians, but 13 000 000 Russians killed by the Germans? Maybe the Rusiian books just dont get translated, but the Russians seem to have gotten over it....

1. The introduction of wholesale bombing was a British invention as it was thought that aerial bombing might make a fine weapon to "police the empire". Remember, everybody and his bother proposed well before WW2 that aerial bombing of any civilian target should be unequivocally banned by international law. All except the US and Britain.

2. I wonder how your "13 000 000 killed Soviet civilians" figure was arrived at. It is probably a Soviet propaganda figure that includes all civilian deaths of the period, including all that died from natural causes (illness, old age etc.) or from indirect actions. I.e. it probably includes those civilians who died in gulags etc. One must never forget that the bolshevik "legal" code was one by which anything that served the revolution was legal and anything that opposed was criminal. In other words, if a Soviet civilian is executed by NKVD for a suspected treason in a war, the blame belongs to their enemy. If a civilian is caught for spying by the occupier and executed, the blame belongs again to the occupier, not the Soviet government who instigated illegal partisan warfare. Remember, for an armed individual to enjoy the protection of international laws then in effect required him to wear a clearly recognizable uniform or other identification.

Furthermore, the Soviet government had ample time to evacuate most of the areas that did come under occupation. Yet, they chose not to. Why? First, since the duty to provide sustenance for an occupied population belongs to the occupier, the Soviets (and the British Ministry of Economic Warfare as well) saw this as a weapon to burden the enemy economy. Second, from day 1 the Soviet leadership intented to use their civilians as weapons.

In short, a significant responsibility for the losses of civilians in occipied Soviet Union must belong to the bolsheviks themselves as they INTENTIONALLY left them there.

An analogy: a person leaves his wallet on a restaurant table, wents to the head to have a dump, comes back 30 minutes later and sees his wallet gone. Most of us would consider his loss as one of his own making.

Whereas the German civilians killed by the Soviets were direct losses inflicted by the Red Army personnel for just the fun of killing. Or can you provide examples of German partisan activity by non-uniformed civilians?

Though here was well some of the blame for the civilian losses must be borne by those failing to evacuate them, but on the other hand the German leadership did not intend to use these civilians as partisans.

3. That war of movement explanation does not work at all. If it is was valid, then how come e.g. the campaigns in Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Norway had minimal civilian losses? First, because these campaigns were run as "professional military campaigns" for material objects, not as political crusades. Second, neither Danish, Belgian, Dutch nor Norwegian governments intended to use their civilians as partisans; just the opposite. Especially Danish and Norwegian civilians behaved like civilians should do to enjoy the protection of their civilian status.

4. Provided that you don't fume over Jews, I won't fume about Russian barbarism.

5. Let's assume you are a juror at a murder trial. Person A has eaten 10 babies alive. Accused B has eaten 3 babies alive and then has killed person A and eaten him alive. There is video evidence on all these actions. Question: would you find Accused B not quilty for murder?

[pasoleati]

Apologies for spelling errors. Seems that editing after posting is not possible. Plus at least on my eyes the dark grey background with white text is not writing friendly.

[Herr Lyppe]

I have no interest insome inane pissing contest. The value in publishing this type of historical narrative was questioned, I only sought to justify it from my perspective.
Those examples, and many more, are post-war events. Peter Fechter on the Berlin Wall, Waffen SS POWs in Czechoslavkia. Something that might have been immediately recognized had you taken the time to read any of texts whose validity you're placing in question.
Nor are lend-lease repayments comparable to reparations. No other nations that have committed similar crimes have had these demands placed on them. Not to say they're wrong in theory, but only if it's applied to all.
Considering the sensible impressions that have been given on this book, it seems there's far better texts available.

[Chris Boonzaier]

In short, a significant responsibility for the losses of civilians in occipied Soviet Union must belong to the bolsheviks themselves as they INTENTIONALLY left them there.

Are you for real? I mean seriously? You think the first priority of a country is to evacuate millions of civilians out of the path of an advancing enemy... and that is why the russians stupidly had their people killed? How would they then use roads and communications to mobilise their army... methinks that is not really a thought out argument

If so... then the Germans are to blame in 1945 for not giving first priority to getting theirs out of the way of the Russians... right?

[Chris Boonzaier]

3. That war of movement explanation does not work at all. If it is was valid, then how come e.g. the campaigns in Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Norway had minimal civilian losses?

Do you want to compare the resistence put up by Russia compared to some of the above?

Try including Poland ... it more or less rocks your theory....

The difference between us... i will read the book shown here... but also the book in my link...

Pick out the treatment of french and italians here...

"
Corporal Dieckmann told his pal in captivity of action in France in 1940; 'In the streets, the doorways, the alleyways and sidestreets I shot everything that showed itself. My dear, if a few innocent ones fell, well, I don't give a s**t.'
Another report picked up on a soldier boasting of his actions in Salonika when civilians had barricaded themselves inside a church. 'So we had no choice but to burn them out, did we? I mean, it was their decision to do that, wasn't it?'
The men who marched off to gain the 'Living space' for Hitler's Reich in 1939 were part of that great mass of Germans who had never been beyond their own borders; at the start of the war just four percent of Reich citizens possessed a passport.

Let loose in these strange lands, told that their own conscience did not matter, they morphed from provincial burghers into willing executioners, happy in the knowledge that the man they promised to serve with an oath binding them to him until death, would take on all the humans responsibilities and concerns they suppressed.
In Italy, as in France, in Russia, in Poland, it was the same, terrible corruption that allowed men who, before the war would never have kicked a dog or struck a child, to behave with the barbarity of Mongol hordes instead of the discipline of an army reared in a country which gave the world Schiller and Schubert, Goethe and Beethoven.
Senior corporal Sommer epitomised this degradation of human decency when he was caught by the electronic devices talking about the terror he was instructed to instill in Italian villagers.
'In every place we got to the order was the same; kill a couple of locals. Or one day; 'Get rid of 20 so we will have some peace and quiet here and they won't get any stupid ideas!' Before we knew it we had offed 50.
'It was easy to round them up. We just said, come here, and got them all into the marketplace and he (unidentified) came along with his machine gun and da-da-da-da and...that's how it happened. Then he said; 'Excellent!' He called the Italians pigs. He had an incredible rage against the Italians, you wouldn't believe it.'


So I think you are wrong....