If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
A friendly reminder to Germany.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Germans were highly insulted when the taking down of Saddam's statue was compared to the taking down of the Berlin wall.
"No blood was spilled taking down the Berlin wall."
No blood by stand-for-nothing Germans. I guess the fight against communism isn't taught in the German school system...nor the Berlin airlift that kept Berliners from being starved or taken over by the Soviet Union. Nor all of the Cold War that succeeded in breaking the back of communism.
"No blood was spilled taking down the Berlin wall."
No blood by stand-for-nothing Germans. I guess the fight against communism isn't taught in the German school system...nor the Berlin airlift that kept Berliners from being starved or taken over by the Soviet Union. Nor all of the Cold War that succeeded in breaking the back of communism.
0
Comments
There was no blood spilt breaking Communism in East Germany - the Berlin Airlift was not attacked by the Soviet forces in East Germany which they could easily have done. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 after a peaceful uprising by East Germans, the man in charge of the East German border controls suffered from an internal dilemma about whether to open fire on the masses trying to cross into West Berlin, he didn't and no blood was lost. The whole reason the Cold War is so-called because there was no actual direct fighting between the East and West. Yes there were "proxy" wars in Korea and Vietnam but these only altered the short-term balance of power. In the end, Communism was brought down economically, the USSR couldn't keep up with the USA and collapsed trying to - that's why Gorbachev opened the Soviet economy and increased freedoms in the late 1980s because he could see the writing on the wall and wanted to keep the Soviet Union together in some shape or form.
So no blood was actually spilt defeating Communism in Germany. It's very insulting to say the Germans stand for nothing - even you PNJ have to admit they stand for something if only because they didn't stand with the US over Iraq. The Germans are an educated, civilised race who stand for things like social justice and a peaceful existance.
Heck they undoubtedly know more about our own US history on top of other subject areas than you.
Lot's of lives were lost during the cold war. America's commitment freed Germany...twice. Don't try to twist history on an American. Today, they break UN sanctions regarding chemicals to Iraq and then cloak it in a peace march.
Whats more I know which I'd rather be a part of...
Whats more (again), if I played any part in taking down the berlin wall I too would be insulted by it being likened to the tearing down of the statue of Saddam.
Tearing down the wall needed to be done.
Tearing down the statue sold newspapers.
They managed it without bloodshed (more of less), on their own, so their liberated country belonged to them and they had pride in it. Thats the difference between the two
I also agree you need to look at your history a little better, and look at the differences between the German education system and your own.
I think i'd rather have had my education in germany than over here.
America's commitment freed Germany...twice.
??? This really needs some explanation. I'm not sure what events you are refering to.
OK, there was the food drops in the late fifties / early sixties (or some time around then), but other than that....
I have a horrible feeling one of those freedom giving exercises is when the US helped stop germany ruling the world. How this would count as freeing them i'm not too sure.
CP you're a good person. Key into any search engine: "Saddam" "torture" Just take a moment to read what comes up.
America helped to free Germany in World Wars One and Two (in WWI because Germany sank the Luisitania and promised most of the American South to Mexico if they invaded; in WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and Germany was allied to the Japanese.) The Cold War was an entirely different event.
I'm sorry for telling you the truth PNJ - but America is not always the great heroic and noble race you want to think it is, it is the same as all nations, it has a chequered past. If you watched less Hollywood movies glamourising the Americans as heroes every time and read some history books you'd find out the truth.
Sanctions were a futile, vindictive and counter-productive measure put on the Iraqis after the Gulf War by Britain and America. They achieved little except to drive the Iraqi people further into poverty.
Perhaps you ought to remember why the Germans are so squeamish about war - they had their country obliterated after WWII and have been invaded and conquered on their own land twice in the last hundred years. They've seen the consequences of war first hand which you and I have not, the least you do is treat their views with respect and not treat war like some big computer game - real people suffer during war.
Didn't go back that far. We were talking about the Berlin war and the reasons it came down. Fairly tales about East German heros neglect to mention the fact that Western values, morality and opportunities destroyed Communism.
And don't worry, no one on the Internet shakes my view of my country.
Then will you prove your examples of America liberating the Germans during the Cold War twice? No-one else seems to know what you're on about, I assumed you were talking about the two world wars. Yes western values, morality and opportunities - it wasn't America on its own, it was also Britain, France and most importantly West Germany that encouraged the liberation of East Germany and the subsequent re-unification. Besides the simple fact is western economics destroyed Communism because they couldn't keep up with the arms race.
No-one can shake your view because you block out all opinions and facts that you don't like which is not a good way to honour your country. Don't you think it's better to know the full story about your country and then reach your own conclusions and not just tune out the bad bits?
You meet a German today, I am sure you will find they are more than well versed on the history of their country and the collective guilt that the nation carries as a whole, indeed, will carry as a whole for a number of generations to come. There are reminders of the horrors of war almost every week, whether it be in newspapers or magazines. Similarly the German press has discussed at length the communist era in the new eastern states of Germany and I'm pretty damn sure that the entire cold-war period up until the fall of the wall is included in the school curriculum. Its all part of the two Germanys - East and West understanding each other better, so would disagree with your point about the "fight against communism" not being taught in German schools.
I think the Germans have more than demonstrated their remorse over events which for the most part were carried out by a different generation entirely.
For this reason, I completely understand the Germans anti-war stance. At the end of the day, UK and US did the job they were meant to do, they were always going to do it anyway, so what point is there belittling Germany for its anti-war stance??
As for the Germans problem with the fall of the wall being compared to the fall of the saddam statue - well can't you see their point?
The fall of the wall came literally from the people of Germany. The Eastern part of Germany (the communist side) was falling apart, they couldnt keep up the economic charade any longer and Gorbachov (sp??) had signalled he was no-longer going to prop up the ailing state. The people of Germany rose up and peacefully brought about the fall of the wall.
Iraq on the other hand was nothing like that. Surely you can see that. The fall of the statue was born directly out of armed conflict.
Its almost a ridiculous a statement as saying the birth of Catherine Zeta Jones new child is exactly the same as the birth of christ... you know what I mean. Two similar events, i.e a birth, the fall of a regime but totally different circumstances....
and what on earth was the statement about "fairy tales about East German heros" - are you aware of the situation in Germany at all. One thing I am certain of, you do not see any fairy tales praising east german heros, for goodness sake the German Democratic Republic has been dead for almost 13 years now....
Not wanting to sound mean, but please don't make such glaring historical mistakes. It doesnt help your cause...
CP you're a good person. Key into any search engine: "Saddam" "torture" Just take a moment to read what comes up.
How did tearing down the statue help to end this? This I do not see.
I can see directly how bringing down the Berlin wall would help free the people behind it, though.
Fairly tales about East German heros neglect to mention the fact that Western values, morality and opportunities destroyed Communism.
Western values and oppertunities that entered the country because its what the people wanted them, not because america wanted to put those values there (although they prolly did).
So we're here still looking for 2 times america has freed germany (although 1 could be WW1 -> This is under debate)
I don't think WW1 could be said to have freed Germany. I don't think they were living under any more repressive a regime then any Western European country at that point. And rebuilding their country after the war coupled with the reparations mandated by the Versaille treaty damn near destroyed their economy, so how did it free them?
So let me get this straight. America "freed" Germany by ending the national existence of Germany twice, by putting millions of Germans under the rule of alien governments? If Germany attacked America and put Texas under the rule of Mexico, New England under the rule of Canada, and Florida under the rule of Cuba would you consider that a liberation?
So let me get this straight. America "freed" Germany by ending the national existence of Germany twice, by putting millions of Germans under the rule of alien governments?
That was my thoughts... But apparently his examples are from the cold war. I'm still waiting for him to cite is examples (hopefully they stand up a little better than his statistics)
Assistant Secretary of Defence John McNaughton in early 1966, seeing that large scale bombing of North Vietnam villages was not producing the desired result, suggested a different strategy. The air strikes on villages, he said, would "create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home." He suggested instead:
-- Howard Zinn, People's History of the United States, 481
Now how can this be? Only a diabolical evil madman like Hitler would do such a thing. Illinois. That's an Indian name. Whatever happened to those blokes?
The Grundgesetz of 1949 has managed to serve the Federal Republic very well until now, thank you very much.
I am not saying the re-drawing of the German national frontiers after world war II was just, but then, there were serious injustices carried out by the Germans during the Nazi time....
Anyway, it was the Russians who insisted that the Oder/Neisse line be pushed back further west - the americans had always intended more of what is now Western Poland to return to Germany. It didn't and a lot of the German Volk in the east had to come west. Not desirable but at the same time, it could have been worse... someone could have tried and round them up into carriages and take them to extermination camps, just like the Nazi's did with many Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and Mentally retarded persons, to name but a few...
America, along with the Western Allies, and the Soviet Union, partitioned Germany along with the rest of the European continent itself and much of the rest of the world. America then cooperated with the Soviet Union in ethnically cleansing millions of Germans in the East. Ever hear of the Morgenthau Plan?
America was allied with the Soviet Union who raped so many women in Berlin over a million babies were fathered. Funny, whatever happened to those “war crimes” trials? America then incarcerated millions of German POWs in concentration camps and deliberately exterminated hundreds of thousands of them.
I assume you are referring to the ridiculous failure which was largely abolished before Hitler came to power anyway, with overwhelming popular support at that.
The Grundgesetz was approved by the military government of the west zone and not through a plebiscite of the German people. According to the Geneva conventions the military occupation government has to respect the laws sovereign states. The allies against international law arrested the legal government in Flensburg. All judges of the constitutional court were arrested - most of them murdered by the Soviets.
Why of course it was, noble America and Great Britain are liberty powers and the forces of Germany represented the darkness of evil! Hallelujah!
Define injustice. Explain to me what constitutes such an injustice and what would be an appropriate remedy.
America planned to annihilate Germany and partition it years before the war. See Hans Morgenthau’s Germany is our Problem.
Ethnic cleansing in other words is okay, so long as America is doing it. By no means a new experience on America’s part, just ask the Cherokee.
America and Great Britain sterilized thousands of mentally defective individuals in the early 20th Century. America also performed hideous biological experiments on blacks in the Tuskegee injecting them with syphilis. Winston Churchill himself hosted the world’s first eugenics conference in London. The Western allies also deliberately exterminated thousands of German POWs. The Russians slaughtered them by the millions.
America did not end the national existence of Germany. Alongside the rest of the allies, they helped liberate Germany from the evils of Nazi regime and re-kindle some of the democratic institutions from the weimar republic
I see your point, but I still wouldn't refer to it as "america freeing germany", as some-one already has.
Am not saying that you have not made some salient points, although I wouldn't agree with all of them.
I in no way condone and sympathise with what America is doing now, nor do I condone past atrocities by the US and British governments which have since been conveniently forgotten.
Germany was partitioned after the war. Could you have come up with a better solution at the time. May 1945? Soviets were already in the East, so was there an alternative to partition then, no, because Germany had been blown to pieces by the allies in an attempt to shatter public morale, as it had limited effect strategically on the outcome of the war. But anyway... most Germans by 1945 were happy to be liberated at least by Americans and British rather than the Russians.
The more permanent partition of Germany in 1949 failed the German people and also meant that the border with Poland issue was effectively overlooked until 1990 which by that time, was to late to do anything about. I agree with you on that point.
As for your point about the 1949 Grundgesetzt. I will repeat my point, it has served the German state very well ever since. I am sure the vast majority of Germans today would tell you the same!
as for your point about injustices (and I know I am probably lining myself up for an argument on this one...)
a) I believe it is an injustice to kill 6 million (or whatever the actual number was, in case this is disputed) Jews for simply having a different religious faith and because they did not fit in with the Nazi's racial ideas.
b) I similarly believe that it was an injustice to murder a substancial amount of Gypsies, just because of their racial background and the fact that for many of them, all they were guilty of was living the life they had led for centuries
c) I also believe it is an injustice to kill someone over their sexual orientation - it is a matter for the individual and not the state to decide
d) I also believe it is an injustice to kill persons with handicaps or who are mentally retarded. They too have much to offer society?
what would you have done with these problems then Heydrich?
of course you can argue there were injustices on the other side as well
a) of course the rapings of innocent german women and girls was disgusting and totally unhuman
b) the bombing of german cities (particularly Dresden for example) was a terrible injustice and has long been recognised as unnecessary from a strategic military point of view
and am sure there are many more examples.
However point is - Two Wrongs DON'T Make a Right!!
Which is more than Heydrich can say about his view of German Govts.
Nazi dude, you seem to still be glossing over the Holocaust...
Yep, I would like to see him explain that one. and then see how he could possibly justify it!
It is true there are other points of view. What irritates me however is how the Nazis are demonized in such a way when their crimes are by no means comparable to the outrages of the Americans and the British.
Okay.
I like to remind the Americans and British of their own history when they start lecturing others about "liberty" and "freedom."
Yes it was, as was the European continent itself and parts of Asia and Africa. Where did Poland go for roughly the next 50 years?
If I had it my way there would not have been any America intervention in the Second World War. Like South Africa and Rhodesia in the British Empire in my view the American South fought on the wrong side of World War 2. If history was able to repeat itself I would have liked to seen the American South fight against the United States and South Africa and Rhodesia against Great Britain.
Yes, after being aided by the Americans and the British, the Bolshevik Soviet Union was rolling into East Germany to rape women by the millions.
In which civilians populations were deliberately targeted for extermination by high explosives.
If anything, the bombing only encouraged the Germans to resist.
Many Germans worked with the Russians against the Americans and the British. They also surrendered like fools only to be exterminated in American extermination camps.
Okay.
Which was established by military rule. Perhaps we should extinguish the government of Great Britain under Tony Blair, and institute military rule, who knows perhaps 50 years from now they will say it was for their own good?
Which is irrelevant in the context of 1945-1955.
The Jews were exterminated because they were actively using their influence abroad to influence foreign states to wage a war of extermination against the German people. We are stuck with the VERY SAME problem today in the United States, with influential Jews using their money and influence to use the American military to wage wars against Israel's enemies.
I suppose then you agree it is a crime to murder American Indians to take their soil?
Agreed.
So do I.
If I had it my way I would have removed the Jews to Palestine, something which the National Socialist Government supported, and something which the British Foreign Office opposed. There never would have been a "Holocaust" if Great Britain and Germany were willing to let the Jews immigrate to their respective countries en masse.
If it is okay for Russians and Americans to ethnically cleanse Germans from their homes - in many cases to rape and exterminate them - I do not see any difference when the same is done to the Jews.
Yet there were no "Nuremburg Trials" for Soviet and American War Criminals.
Agreed.
I have no problem when people condemn National Socialist excesses. I am not even a National Socialist. The only problem I have is with the huge historical distortion that is made out of the Nazis.
Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.
Key into any search engine "School of the Americas, Fort Benning Georgia".
Look at the alumni of that school. (Although most of the names probably won't mean anything to you)
Look at the history of US involvement in the '70's and '80's in Latin America. In particular look at the training that US military and intelligence agencies gave to government forces fighting Marxist rebels. This training included torture manuals, I've seen them and while I couldn't read them myself, a classmate translated for the class techniques that would make even the hardest man squirm.
I didn't want to believe that my government did this either. But it happened and every REAL American citizen and patriot has to accept that it did. Blocking out what you don't want to hear makes you less of a patriot than accepting it. Its one of the hard realities of being a citizen, taking responsibility for your governments actions.
Equating the tearing down of a statue in Baghdad to the end of a 50 year bipolar international struggle involving hundreds of millions of people is so ridiculous I'm not even going to start in on it. Of course, what do I expect, you were what, a toddler when it happened?
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030405-15057056.htm
Are you for real???
The Nazi party and its politics were responsible for the greatest war in history, with tens of millions dead and the SYSTEMATIC extermination of 12 million Poles, Slavs, Gypsies and Jews.
If the Germans had never invaded the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe wouldn't have been under the Soviet jackboot for 50 years, with all of the resulting misery.
Absolutely.
The British and French Governments who initiated the war against Germany are entirely responsible for "World War 2."
About 5 million of them in India starved to death by Great Britain.
What is the source of this arbitrary number?
Which countries would these be again? Would they be Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria which were allied to Germany in the first place?
Remind me again who invaded Poland? After being warned that doing so would mean war?
5 million starved to death by the British, huh? What about the 1 million plus that starved to death in Stalingrad? Or Leningrad? Not to mention the combat deaths caused by the war. The Soviet POW's starved and worked to death in labor camps. Add up the numbers.
The 12 million figure? It came from the Nazis themselves. Being good Germans, they documented everything. The figure that stands out in my head was that at Auschvitz (sp) alone, over 3 million people were put to death. All documented by the people who did it.
The Soviet Union invaded these countries while pushing back the German army that invaded their country.
How was a child, in Poland, doing that?
So, it is the British who murdered them then?
How exactly are their actions distorted? What do we claim that they did, that in fact they didn't do? And vice versa?