Most Evil men of WW2

Ok,discustion here is about Hitler and Stalin as a see.But i did not notice 1 thing-hitlers satelites,like NDH (today croatia and His leader Ante Pavelic ,eaven a german was terrified how cruel they was) ,and otthers not so known butchers in the name of germany.Aparently any ocupayed country has at least one...

 

Hmm, two of the most evil men after WW2 in europe were Churchill and Truman, cos they were contrary to the public international law, when they endorsed the expulsion of the german peoples in the east, during the potsdam conference.

-Expulsion of the German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany.

-Germany's eastern border was to be shifted westwards to the Oder-Neisse line, effectively reducing Germany in size by approximately 25% compared to her 1937 borders. The territories east of the new border comprised East Prussia, Silesia, West Prussia, and two thirds of Pomerania. These areas were mainly agricultural, with the exception of Upper Silesia which was the second largest centre of German heavy industry.




Why, that is unjustness and that really makes me sick

Another one is edward Benes, a criminal, he declared this

Czech political scene and most of the public refuses any reconsideration of the decrees, suspecting it would be followed by financial demands to the Czech Republic.

hmm, no comment,

Che

 

Hi Che, an interesting (and bound to be controversial) submission.

I just have a couple of questions (in my naiveity)

1) why are the borders 'pre-1937' - why not pre-1936, or 1933, or 1919?

2) Did Churchill & Truman 'endorse' the Soviet expulsion of Germans by actually standing up and saying 'yes, go ahead, deport them, we're fine with that' or by just not reacting when it happened / when Stalin said 'we're gonna do it'?

 

Hey Ricky,

because Austria and the Sudetenland were united with Germany in march and october 1938, so they said pre 1937 => pre Munich Agreement

They agreed with it in august 1945 at the Potsdamer conference. They sign Potsdam Agreement and support it, that all germans had to leave.
The mass expulsion of ethnic minorities was legitimized by the 1945 Potsdam Conference, which called for resettlement to be conducted in an "orderly and humane manner." In the postwar atmosphere characterized by chaos, famine, disease, cold winter, crime, violent militias, and senseless killings, the number of German civilian casualties was climbing during the whole process of evacuation and expulsion. Estimates vary by source, but it is generally accepted that between one and three million German civilians lost their lifes between 1946-1948.

Regards,
Che.

 

Does this even come close to the atrocities committed by command of Stalin or Hitler? Certainly not.

The deportation of human beings does not necessarily come with massive deaths, and most borders are arbitrary anyway. Germany's Eastern border was established at its 1937 standard through centuries of agressive warfare. Even if the deaths are most certainly wrong and regrettable, I do not see how it makes Truman and Churchill "evil men". Did they intend for millions of Germans to perish? Was their policy aimed at the extermination of an ethnic group for their own benefit?

 

Che:
I must admit I am ignorant in regards to the terms of the Potsdam Conference, it's ramifications, and the resulting hardships suffered by the German people.

However, I will make mention of the Berlin Airlift as a means in which the United States, Britain and other allies contributed in breaking the stranglehold on Berlin by the Soviet blockade in 1948-49.
It has been hailed as the greatest peacetime humanitarian/aviation effort in history, and hopefully created much-needed goodwill in the eyes of those Germans directly affected by the blockade.

Tim
----------------------------------------------------
" In all, 31 Americans, 41 British (including an Australian and a South African), and 5 German civilians lost their lives in airlift operations.

There were many tributes to these peacetime heroes. The Air Force named the streets of a dependent housing community in Wiesbaden for the fallen Americans. A more lasting tribute was provided by the city of Berlin. The Berlin Scholarship Foundation was established to provide education scholarships for all the children of the British and Americans who gave their lives for the citizens of Berlin. In addition, the names of the fallen American and British airmen are engraved in the airlift monument built in front of Tempelhof and the square in which the monument sits was renamed "Platz der Luftbruecke" (Airlift Plaza)."

--from trumanlibrary.org

 

What was the alternative, Churchill and Truman were supposed to go war with Stalin over the Germans? It wasn't going to happen. Churchill and Truman simply went along with the real-politik of the situation. I don't think anyone was too worried about German rights at that time.

 

A thought occurs to me. I don't know if it is correct, but it is an interesting idea.

Have you thought that maybe they were trying to help those people?
Given the various quotes you gave from Edward Benes, and given how they knew the Soviets had treated ethnic Germans in East Prussia, frankly they'd be better off living in the new Germany than stranded in another country. And Potsdam called for and 'orderly and humane' resettlement. That is not the stamp of evil. Evil would have been 'they shall be resettled', or 'cram the sods into cattle trucks so tight they can't move, and 20% will suffocate on the journey...'

 

What about vatican and pope? It is whell known that they helped alot nazist to escape in south america,and some of them openly supported nazi activity against non-catolic population.

 

Uh, do you have any proof of that?

The worst thing I have heard about the Vatican & Pope in WW2 is the fact that they took a long time to get round to condemning the Nazis. The Nazis themselves tended to be really quite anti- the Catholic church. They certainly put enough priests in the camps.

 

I did not say this, however I wrote [...] Hmm, two of the most evil men after WW2 in europe were Churchill and Truman [...].
The point is, that Stalin and Hitler were dictators, who were against democrazy, but Churchill and Truman, who were great politians btw especially
Winston C., were democratic leaders, who fought the World War 2 for freedom in europe. But how can someone fight a moral war, saying he´s on the right side of morality, against a barbaric sytem and after the war they agree with the brutal expulsion of millions of civilians ?

Please don´t misunderstand my point of view, I don´t want to relativise anything and as a conclusion, hmm Nazi-Germany wasn´t so bad, no !!

Good point and the "Rosinenbomber" will never be forgotten, I don´t want to deny allied soldiers the honour, they deserved. I just want to make clear that the politians, not the soldiers, even those democratic, used and support a methode of cruel dictatorships.

Thats no justification, the Nazis could agree with the same sentence about jews and their rights.

lol, through centuries of aggressive warfare, yes, but the question is by who ? Germany lost after 1919 Posen and Danzig, also Westpreußen, so you´re right it was lost after a time of aggressive warfare against Germany.

Regards,
Che.

 

Che:
I think you're being a bit harsh on Truman and the United States in post-war Europe. Remember the Marshal Plan to assist in rebuilding post-war Europe? We poured BILLIONS of dollars of aid into helping to rebuild the infrastructure of Post-War Europe... and discourage the spread of Communism.

Tim
----------------------------------------------------
"The Marshal Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Program (ERP)) was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for United States Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.

The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states in July 12 1947. The Marshall Plan offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, if they would make political reforms and accept certain outside controls. In fact, America worried that the Soviet Union would take advantage of the plan and therefore made the terms deliberately hard for the USSR to accept. The plan was in operation for four fiscal years beginning in July 1947. During that period some $13 billion of economic and technical assistance—equivalent to around $130 billion in 2006—was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

By the time the plan had come to completion, the economy of every participant state, with the exception of Germany, had grown well past pre-war levels. Over the next two decades, Western Europe as a whole would enjoy unprecedented growth and prosperity. The Marshall Plan has also long been seen as one of the first elements of European integration, as it erased tariff trade barriers and set up institutions to coordinate the economy on a continental level. An intended consequence was the systematic adoption of American managerial techniques.

In recent years historians have questioned both the underlying motivation and the overall effectiveness of the Marshall Plan. Some historians contend that the benefits of the Marshall Plan actually were also resulted from new laissez faire policies that allowed for markets to stabilize through economic growth. It is now acknowledged that the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which helped millions of refugees from 1944 to 1947, also laid the foundation for European postwar recovery without ideological motivation."

--from Wilkopedia

 

Churchill and Truman were by no means evil... They could have relegated the problem to someone else to avoid getting their hands dirty but instead they 'solved' the problem of German resettlement themselves... IMHO it would have been more morally offensive if they had waived responsibility and just let someone else do it, as in my mind there was really no-one else who could hold such sway over Stalin than those two... Thus by hadling the matter themselves they really ensured that the most just outcome possible was achieved, arguably to their own discredit

On a side note discouraging communism is perfectly fine so long it does not become an aggressive act and not a defensive one... Bombing a country for being communist is no better than bombing a country for being Jewish... If the country was being militarily aggressive ike the USSR was in 1945 there may be another legitimate motive for going to war, but as stated before the Allies were not going to risk war with them over Germany...

 

Tim, I admire the USA, I really do and I know what the United States did for my country, I´m very sry if it seems that I´m harsh on the U.S.A, however it´s necessary to mention that they legalized the expellsion of 16,5 Million civilian, legalized that 16,5 Million lose their homes thats illegal and against public international law.

Regards,
Che.

 

Che:
As I said, I'm ignorant of the ramifications, and am certain you are in a better position to comment on it's impact than I am.

Seeing as so many German cities were literally raized to the ground, am I stupid to suggest that a large percentage of German civilans had little or nothing to return to in the first-place?

After the boundaries of East-West Berlin/Germany were established, didn't many risk their lives, leaving everything behind in order to escape with their families to the West? They must have felt the opportunity to live in freedom under a democracy worth the associated costs.

I can add little else to this discussion at this point. Many innocent German people were killed, and were dislocated as a result of the war and Germanys' defeat. I'm not unsympathetic to their plight. I have a little German background in my heritage personally, and Southern Indiana has strong presence of peoples with German descent. Our war was against Hitler and Nazis, not the German people as a whole. Unfortunately, all suffered after the defeat, and many paid a high, admittedly undeserved price as a result.

War is most certainly Hell my young friend.

Tim

 

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/H-Fein.html

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/convert.html

THeir ideology was:
1/3 serbs to kill
1/3 translate in catolic
1/3 chase away.
This is just one source,west is not familiar with that,but just look,Yugoslavia is on 4. place on WWII casulties below Russia,Poland,and Germany.
http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/press7.html

 

Hey sinissa,

I know that Yugoslavia payed heavily during WW2, for a whole load of reasons, not least being the long and bitter partisan campaign that split the various sections of society.

As to your evidence, they certainly show the part that the Croatian Catholic Church played in the frankly awful goings on. However, it does seem to have been all from the Archbishop in charge there - I can see no link to the Pope or the Vatican.

 

Right...I remember the Pope was again sorry when came to Greece some years ago as far as the 4th crusade is concerned...The Pope is sorry for behaving lightly with the Nazis during WW2(i.e. speech at Dachau)...etc...etc...

I wonder, while the Pope is supposed to be "infallible" how can he recognize that one of his predecessors was wrong??

 

Coz many ustasha and nazi escaped from allys with vatican help.I dont know
what was pope part there,maybe notthing.And who put archbishop on charge there,coz im really not shure how catolic church works (hierarchy) but i doubt that something can be done withouth pope.
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/gold.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/22/nazi.gold/
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5503
As u see there is a bit more evidences that vatican was involved more directly in this ishue.
edit: URL-s.

[/url]

 

These new borders were not established by agressive warfare but altered after Germany lost a war it arguably started; the old borders, which they changed, definitely were defined by German agression. Remember the War of Austrian Succession, which was undoubtedly started by Prussia to gain control over Silesia. That's just one example.

Make no mistake: if the borders established after WW1 conformed fully to the results of agressive warfare, Germany's eastern border would be far into Russia.