GLORY OF DISHONOUR

Give me just three examples.
Further, let me recommend you to first watch the documentary and then speak.
If Soviets have prosecuted each and every German soldier who committed crimes at the east, that would have constituted a genocide of almost all German population: half of them should have been hung on the first tree and further quarter of them would have deserved to be executed by firing squad. The rest of them should have been sent to Gulag.
Russians were compassionate and merciful.
However, if you've read my posts carefully, my point is: Germans have got exactly what they deserved. Or should I say, they wanted more territories than they needed and they have lost territories they haven't deserved.
PS: Let me clarify the former paragraph: what is the purpose and benefit of hanging the bastard? Nothing, he simply ceases to exist, injustice remains, there is no resolution in killing the turd. In the end you would have to bury the bastard for free. But if you take away something of the greatest value from perpetrators forever, then justice is done. If you pull them from their roots, from their precious land, from the most precious Lebensraum then justice will be done and will stay there forever.

 

Give me one example of a request that was refused.

Hyberbole in a discussion such as this doesn't help your argument. Indeed it is a clear indicator of bias.

Some were some weren't by and large that description is at odds with the behavior of the USSR in WW2.

Then your point is invalid.

Part of the problem here is the lack of precision. The Nazi German government clearly wanted more territories. Did they "need" them? In at least some sense of the word they most certainly did. Did they "deserve" them I'm of the opinion that Nazi Germany did not "deserve" to exist. As for "Germans" certainly the citizens of Nazi Germany deserve at least some of the blame but how about the German communities in other lands? Some did some didn't but your blanket statements don't allow for such nuances.

"Ceasing to exist" is not a penalty? As for the rest of your paragraph it smacks of the old "taint of the blood" laws. There is no justice in punishing the innocent. To suggest so indicates a level of prejudice that is rather alarming. Nazi Germany was destroyed. They lost all their land. They cease to exist. Punishing those of German ancestry for the crimes of the Nazi's just doesn't make sense.

 

I don’t think you really understand. What I have said until now in this tread is neither my opinion nor my own view. I am just attempting to summarize consequences of the war on German population that can be seen as deliberate punishment to the German nation.

Let me be concise: trials took place in Nurnberg, but Germans were sentenced in Postdam. Judge was Churchill:

“Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferrences.”

Churchill, in the House of Commons in 1944

The sentence was harsh indeed:

»It seems that the elimination of the German population of eastern Europe – at least 15,000,000 people – was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta..”

Senator Homer Capehart in a speech before U.S. Senate, Feb. 5, 1946.

 

A Republican who is critical of a Democrat and...That's unheard of.

 

That's possible.

You certainly presented it as if it was your view. Indeed your wording still implies it is your view.

No. What would be an acceptable end to the war from the allied view point was deiceded at Potsdam. Proposals for the post war period were considered. Churchill had his ideas as did others.

 

Of course there were other proposals but it was exactly his idea to cripple Germany forever by bombing and then by dismembering Germany and amputating large parts of historically German territories. It was him who paid-of Poles with German Soil for providing assistance and pretext for destroying Germany. "Rapes" committed by young Red Army soldiers are joke compared to what Churchill did to Germany. Finally, they're leaving the continent at the end of March 2019 and I hope that's forever.
And, by the way, wasn't that you who denied the existence of British Empire?

 

I wasn't him.
It wasn't for providing assistance and pretext for destroying Germany.

The Red Army raped at least 2 million women in '44/'45.
They even raped their own women, no woman in the Red Army was safe unless accepted protection (i.e., provide free sex) of some Soviet officer.
Soviet partisans regularly raped female partisans, for them they were like domestic animals.

 

They had to do mens job because Poles couldn't, were dead drunk, as usual. Think about this carefully: very likely you have Russian ancestry. Collateral, so to speak undesired side product of Russian invasion.

 

My family house was occupied (i.e. they lived together with my family) by German and by Soviet soldiers.
They both were friendly and nice folks.
The Soviets (actually Ukrainians) were the saddest people possible.

 

Mr. Arhivist_Kharkov wrote:

In May-June 1946 in the German city of Dachau, a trial was held of former SS officers accused of shooting prisoners of war on the Western Front in 1944 near the town of Malmedy. It was about the number of dead numbered no more than 120 people. Despite the fact that the Western allies have evidence of the killing of civilians in the USSR, only the Malmedy incident was considered.

but regrettably, the "red" statement is factually wrong.

According to the Joint Four-Nation Declaration of October 1943 only major war crimes (committed by major political and military figures, let's say Himmler) and crimes which have no particular geographical localization were to be prosecuted jointly (see: Nuremberg trials).

According to the same Declaration German officers and men and members of the Nazi party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part ... in atrocities, massacres and executions would be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished.

For that reason, the Western Allies weren't responsible for punishing those people, didn't even have jurisdiction in this case.
It was the duty of the Soviet Union to ask for extradition and to punish the guilty itself.

So the only relevant question is: did the Soviets do that, or not.