Berlin in ruins

A rather sarcastical video about Berlin shortly after the war. Marlene Dietrich sang both songs, unfortunately they still exist and the old Berlin don´t.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EF3kDBAhUWY&feature=related

"A terrible sight"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OLMAEhVq2ok&feature=related

the old Berlin

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bW38z4CmLYU&feature=related

 

... oh, dear - someone must have got pretty annoyed with poor old Germany to do that.

:roll:

 

.

The sad irony of it is that Berlin was one of the least nazi cities in germany

.

 

Post subject

"mit gegangen,
mit gefangen,
mit gehangen."

 

Yeah, yeah, nazi buildings build with nazi bricks in nazi streets by people, who didn´t suss out how evil the nazi really are and what really happened on the Ostfront (thx to to the independent media at.t) like other brilliant forum members and who don´t have the ballz to denie and protest against the nazi regime, it was a free country I forget, get what they deserved.

Well I would rather call it envious.

 

Uhh !

 

I suppose it's a shame you didn't win the war - with your generally charitable and misunderstood intentions - those jews in particular got it dead wrong - didn't they ------ Che.

 

.

The nazis were mostly strong in small towns and countryside , the social classes who responded the best to their propaganda was the middle class , middle public servants and pensioners ,
they were a big hit with women and the elderly , they were stronger in the south and west of germany
the large cities were on the whole social democrats with a communist element , the larger the city the stronger the communists
Red Berlin , had its Spartakist insurrection fifteen years previously , it had been drowned in blood but the capital was left wing .

Merlin was ist "mit gegangen " bite ???

.

 

translation

It's an old German proverb or saying which translates as.......
"Went with",
"Caught with",
"Hanged with".
Or, simply, If you associate with wrong-doers, you get caught with wrong-doers and suffer the same penalty as wrong-doers.

 

i agree the proverb applies to grown men ... remember in mcmurtrys great "lonesome dove " a former buddy and texas ranger "jake " falls in with some bad outlaws , and though he does not personaly commit any terrible crimes ,when gus and call catch up the outlaws ,they hang poor ol jake too...went with ,caught with ,ergo necktie party .

most women and all children however do not deserve to hang , alas , ww2 bombers being what they were , doomed millions of civilians to death .

 

.


The women were the strongest supporters of the Fuhrer , the opponents were overwhelmingly men
Even now it is a truism in politics that women vote to the right
Claiming immunity as a chivalrous gesture smack of double standards
The right to vote has some consequences , equality of guilt being one of them , as for the children ,they didn't ask for it but it was for them that the world was being conquered and whole populations slaughtered ,



.

 

But define child. Children as young as 11 were manning flak guns and even serving as infantry.

One of the nastier parts of the Nazi regime was the regimented indoctrination of children. I'm not saying that makes it ok to kill them, just pointing out that 'innocent' is a loose term.

 

they pratice to kill "the enemy combatants" so a child with a gun pointed at you is as much a enemy combatant as a 18 year old pointing a gun at you. does it make it morally right, i dont think so. but the soldiers need to protect there life...

 

also remember that the guerillas in africa, are using child soldiers, against the Geneva convention!!!!
or the khmer rouge in Cambodia, using the children as spies ( against their own adult population, including their own parents)and soldiers

 

child soldiers in the third world are often said to be very pityless and without empathy . and even more brutal than their 20 something comrads

however, of german women and preteen children killed in the war, the percetage that died as gunners or infantry i would guess would be a tiny fraction of one percent .

 

If the Nazis abused the (nationalistic) enthusiasm of young kids to send them to the slaughter without any scruple to achieve a military turn of the tide, why didn´t they use toxic gas to stop the allied and soviet troops. The Nazis desperately planned 1000 ton tanks, send old men and kids to the front, murdered millions of civilians in europe, so it might be clear that they have neither a conscience nor a spark of humanity. So if they tried to stop the downfall by hook or by crook, why didn´t they use it. Were allied/soviet troops equipped with gas masks in the ETO ?

Regards,
Che.

 

.

Because Hitler personal decision not to use it
Hadler and Keitel asked to use it on the eastern front at Stalingrad ,
Hitler steadfastly refused , he had been gassed during WW1
The Germans scientists had developed the new phosphate based gases
Tabun and Sarin ,
a production factory had been build ( with double containment and negative pressurization ! )
Those gases are even today the most effectives killers around ,
The agreement was no first use ,

it was respected on both side , something one can be thankful for

As for child soldier , it is totally in the spirit of the Geneva convention to roast a kid with a gun , if it is hostile and armed it is a legitimate target !

.

 

The Nazis didn't used chemical weapons for a number of reasons, firstly Hitler supposedly was very anti chemical weapons having been gassed himself in WWI, Chemical weapons are notoriously fickle, a change in wind and all of a sudden all that nerve gas is heading back your way instead and there was the fear of reprisal, IIRC the Nazis were convinced that if they had Chemical weapons available so must the Allies, the not unnatural fear was that if they used them then they'd quickly find that a lot of the bombers over the Reich would start dropping something other than explosives.

Lastly, and I admit that this is a degree of speculation on my part, as I understand it by late 1944 certainly by early 1945 some of the more forward thinking commanders were starting to think to inevitable post-war period and what would happen to them personally after any armistice, I'd imagine that more than a few would have been wary of using chemical weapons or giving any orders to that effect considering what the future might hold for them if they did.

 

I think it is entirely morally acceptable to defend yourself against anyone attempting to take your life, it doesn't matter whether they're a 30 year old grizzled veteran, an 11 year old child soldier or even a pregnant woman, if they're shooting at you or clearly going to shoot at you then they're an entirely legimate target legally and morally.

I would make no moral judgement on any individual who killed anyone else in such circumstances.

The question of "Morals" in this instance lies more at the heart of the regime that recruited/trained/conscripted them and put the gun in their hand in the first place.

 

Hhhm, I see, however it´s hard to believe that Hitler, known for his rather unrealistic and megalomaniacal visions and orders, could not be convinced
by the possible prosepct of weaking the enemy in an enormous way. Giving an extensive blow to the enemy strength, especially at the Eastern Front, coz soviet soldiers were not very well protected against these gas attacks.(First shoot, first hit, first kill). Imagine a massive use of toxic gas against soviet positions around the ´Kursker Bogen´ and a succesful operation completed. Ok, the success of Operation Zitadelle would not mean a defeat of the whole SU. However a massive use during and after Op Zita. would have weaken the Red Army enough to secure the road to moscow?? Allright everything a little bit hypothetic, but who knows ?!^^

To the bombing with chemical stuff, guess that the Nazis didn´t contrast with this at all, since at the later stages of war they declared cities to "fortresses"-defended by the Volkssturm/used up military formations- and lead to their destruction, in exchange they did not achieve anything except the death of many civilians, who were not allowed to flee. You know, the Nazis were willing to risk eveything in their delusion, so why they feared the chemical attacks on germany. The Nazis saw the War in Europe as a struggle for life, as Darwin said "Survival of the fittest" (now just for humans) and so Hitler said that he couldn´t waste a tear if the german people would prove to be to weak to withstand the so.call. subhuman force and gets eliminated.

Regards,
Che.