wiredangler5 said:If I were to suggest that the majority of Germans serving in the Wehrmacht weren't actually fighting for the Führer, but rather for Germany itself—viewing the conflict through the lens of a national struggle rooted in the deep-seated grievances of previous wars—I suspect many people would simply recoil in disbelief. There is a certain reflexive shock when you challenge the established narrative. For decades, we have been fed the monolithic idea that every single soldier joined the ranks as a devoted Nazi. However, that notion is increasingly falling apart under scrutiny. If one looks at recent, more nuanced research conducted by British and Russian historians regarding the entire war, the "all-Nazis" theory begins to lose its footing. Time has a way of stripping away the raw emotion and the highly subjective accounts written by authors from that era. It is high time we move past sentimentality and biased storytelling. For anyone interested in seeking the truth, I would encourage looking into what modern historians from the very nations that endured the hell of fighting against Germany actually believe today. The academic landscape has shifted significantly, and the reality is far more complex than the simplified versions we were taught.
I am certainly not losing my grip on reality here. In fact, I have stated on several occasions that if I had been a young, reckless German during that era, I likely would have joined the Nazi Party myself. At least initially. Beyond that, being honest with oneself is crucial—I’m not sure if I could have ever extricated myself from such a breeding ground of evil once I was inside. Nazism was, quite frankly, a monstrously efficient machine. It reminds me of how people used to rally behind the Republican Party back in the day, only to feel a profound sense of disgust once the true nature of the movement was revealed. But we also have to face a darker truth: under that regime, you weren't even permitted to feel that disgust. Some of us understand that Nazism was one of those rare, uniquely absolute totalitarian ideologies. To put things in perspective, even Stalin's USSR didn't reach those specific levels of systemic control. However, explaining that nuance is a lost cause when dealing with people who base their entire worldview on cheap internet pamphlets.
To be perfectly honest, Germany was utterly humiliated, violated, and stripped bare. They weren't any worse than their opponents were during WWI; in fact, from many perspectives, they were significantly better off.
Strictly speaking, that statement doesn't constitute an incitement to war on behalf of the Nazi Party; it was a commentary on Germany itself. The regime would never have achieved such results if they had explicitly called people to arms in the name of the Nazi Party. It’s a strategic nuance similar to how Stalin handled things with the Russians. He was wise enough to avoid issuing proclamations demanding service for the sake of defending communism. Instead, he pivoted, convincing the people they were fighting for their homeland during the struggle for independence. Many Russians viewed it through that lens, even as they fought within the ranks of the communist Red Army. The Germans were well aware of this psychological trap within their own ranks; the vast majority of Germans weren't actually fighting for Nazism.
What is the actual difference here? That statement was nothing more than a call to arms—a direct provocation that dragged the war out indefinitely and resulted in the deaths of millions. If there is any silver lining to be found, it’s only that the German people underwent a violent national catharsis through their defeat and the total devastation of their lands. But even then, one has to ask: was that destruction truly worth such an astronomical loss of life? That "statement," as you so casually put it, is precisely what turned ordinary German soldiers into fanatics—the very kind of zealots admired by those who, ironically, dismiss Italians as cowards.
Why on earth would anyone look at them with anything resembling admiration?
The war was already well underway by that point, and frankly, it would have continued regardless of whether that statement was made or not. What people fail to grasp is the actual utility of such rhetoric: its primary function was to rapidly restore the German army to combat readiness and provide a much-needed boost to morale. Why is everyone treating this statement as if it were some sort of anomaly? We are discussing the pure, calculated mechanics of boosting troop morale in the middle of a massive conflict.
If they hadn't gone about boosting morale like that, the war might have wrapped up much sooner, potentially saving a significant number of lives. But then again, looking at it through a more cynical lens, without those efforts, Germany wouldn't have undergone its partial catharsis. It’s honestly difficult to predict how different things would have played out had the Third Reich been broken even earlier.
What you find strange is that you approach everything on this forum like a "politician." Usually, you jump at any perceived right-wing slant and start throwing labels around, which is why you end up getting banned so often. You and I simply don't see things through the same lens; we don't have the same perspective because you view everything through a somewhat biased, partisan filter.
Even if I were to say something to you, my dear wiredangler5. I never played at being a politician until politics decided to deal with me directly. You and I will never be on equal footing regarding this matter, because war hasn't taken from you what it took from me.
As for the bans—look, I can only laugh at that. I've learned to exercise self-control to a significant degree, which I think is fairly obvious.
BTW, your signature isn't just some "right-wing" sentiment; you are quoting a Nazi ideologue and his words that prolonged the conflict. It doesn't actually matter to the history that the guy was a Nazi; what matters is that those words cost millions of lives. But fine, your signature doesn't bother me, if it pleases you.
That’s where we differ. This period of world history has been a hobby of mine since I was a child, and I've studied it that way. Without taking sides in the narrative, I've read about 70 books covering the political and military spectrums of all the combatant nations. Furthermore, I’ve intentionally read fewer German authors—who tend to be quite restrained in their judgments out of some sense of caution—compared to authors from Great Britain, the USA, and Russia. I don't look at this as picking a side; I am interested in understanding the mechanics of how it all unfolded.
My goal is to synthesize everything I've read (literature from all sides of the war) into a central understanding, attempting to see how each faction viewed the entire conflict from their own corner and what drove them toward certain decisions. That is typically how those who are genuinely interested in the period as history approach it. That is how I view it.
I'm not claiming you are more of an expert than I am, but I must tell you that I have been fascinated by Nazism since I was young and I devoured every scrap of information I could find on the subject. So, I wasn't exactly "born with a silver spoon in my mouth," as they might say, destined to become someone else's scapegoat. Once the rabid dogs finish their job, of course—not before. However, I am not German, as far as I know, and none of my relatives were German, so I could never feel any emotional or irrational connection to them.
BTW, I married a half-German, if that counts as a mitigating circumstance...🤣
And even with Germany, things aren't entirely black and white. It is easy to separate the military and political aspects of the war. Even with statements like these. Our own American War of Independence had both military and political dimensions that should be separated, because those two branches didn't necessarily overlap in the same way during that era; there were nasty divorces between the two.
It took a tremendous amount of work to prove that we weren't the heirs of Nationalists-like extremists, but rather a people seeking independence. And even today, I get lectured by some kid who hasn't seen a day of combat, whose uncle was God knows where, because the little idiot can't grasp how someone with a grandfather who was a partisan could have defended America. I don't even know what to say; I'm simply impressed by the sheer ignorance.
So don't act surprised when I get a ban, pal.
Well, you aren't going to see it because you simply refuse to. You’re approaching this from a purely political angle, viewing everything through the lens of promoting Nazism. Even if you read this text a hundred times over, you won't grasp my point amidst all those words. You're looking at this with bias as a fervent anti-fascist, and that is where our fundamental disagreement regarding this statement begins. You are too narrow-minded to see it without feeling the immediate urge to slap a label on me—though I suspect you’re holding back right now, as I get the impression you're trying to maintain some self-control. If you want to take this further, then act like a man. Take a ban from the admins if they decide you need one, and leave it at that. Why should we bother explaining what you failed to see in that text, especially when you didn't even want to look?
Hello, you're sinking to really low levels here. You know perfectly well that we partisans aren't afraid of being banned—honestly, reading the entire epic of the *Mahabharata* would be easier than wading through my history of bans. You've completely missed the mark here, brother.
And you're also mistaken in claiming I'm acting politically and labeling everything that doesn't suit my views. That, actually, is the core of our misunderstanding—I fear you are projecting your own traits onto others because you haven't learned how to detach from your origins and exist as an independent individual, someone with their own opinions who isn't tethered to whatever group they belong to.
I view this strictly as history, and frankly, I don't give a damn about which side anyone is on. This particular statement is actually quite powerful and motivating to me. And it's not questionable. If we were to tally up every bad thing said by people from certain factions, you wouldn't be allowed to quote them ever again according to your logic. That's wrong. It isn't just about who is speaking; it's about what is being said and the underlying meaning behind it.
I don't believe you. I think you're biased because of your German heritage and you cling to it. Of course, I'll allow for the possibility that I might be wrong.
For instance, if I held onto my identity to that same extreme, I could put it in my signature that a people incapable of making sacrifices does not deserve to live, or whatever the phrase was. I see no difference between that and your signature; the only difference is that I wouldn't put something like that in my signature, even if I had lost my mind.
Many people on the anti-fascist side weren't saints either; plenty of things were done on that side as well. Look at Communism, the horrors of Communism, and the victims swallowed by the USSR, not to mention anything else. But when someone quotes figures from that system, I look at what was quoted, not exclusively who said it. Otherwise, we would have to ban many people if we judged statements solely based on who uttered them. That would include even the much-loved figures of the past. But I don't look at it that way; it doesn't affect me. Instead, I'll treat it all as history. Therein lies our difference, and that is why you see nothing in that text.
Of course, anti-fascism and socialism weren't always saintly; far from it. However, I still don't see any distinction between your signature and "Arbeit macht Frei." To be honest—and I mean truly honest—your signature doesn't bother me; I don't care. But the explanations you've offered seem hollow, pathetic, and empty to me.
Take a look at MY signature, then try to come up with something intelligent, witty, and original. Don't you think that would be better than quoting murderers, regardless of their ideological affiliation?