Why is it that when German soldiers occupied Eastern Europe there wasn't the en masse rape everywhere like there was...

Question answered.

>Eastern European peasant girls wore muslim style hijabs 70 years ago to appear humble and chaste

really makes you stink

Poor bait

The Wehrmacht was really the most advanced for it's time army in the past 10 centuries they only lost because the winter of 43' was cold also also because the Italians dragged them into Africa also the Luftwaffe would have been better if there weren't so many supply shortages once they had jets by the way did you know that not all nazis were evil some of them were okay people the holocaust happened but it probably wasn't as severe as people say it was-
INHALE

it wouldn't have feasible to use precious fuel and resources doing something that didn't contribute to the war effort did you know that Albert Speer was a really good architect also he didn't know about the holocaust so he's not a bad guy also Hugo Boss designed the uniforms don't they look cool they look so cool dude all the German generals were really smart it's just that Hitler kept making bad decisions if it weren't for him the Wehrmacht totally would have repelled D-Day and captured Moscow and Stalingrad did you know that Hitler didn't want to bomb civilians in London it's just that the British accidentally bombed some civilians in Germany and that made him retaliate also the firebombing of Dresden was way worse also did I mention that the only reason the Germans lost is because of Italy and the winter of 43' being really cold and Hitler not crowning Rommel grand Fuhrer of the Wehrmact and god-emperor of all things
INHALE

Anyway, I'm gonna catch you guys later. Let me know if you want to play some Hearts of Iron 3

>there wasn't the en masse rape everywhere

there was, it's just the you don't hear about it because the germans were nice enough to kill the women after, not leaving many alive to talk about it unlike the soviets.

>not hearts of iron 4
ya blew it

Because try to compare the two mindsets.

Hans
>patriotic kid from a well developed country
>somewhat indoctrinated, was in hitlerjugend and shit
>war to him is either adventure or a patriotic duty
>he has no idea what awaits him in stalingrad

Ivan
>peasant
>most likely hates stalin as much as hans does
>got conscripted in 1941 and marched through the entire battle trail
>his country was invaded by the darkest forces ever known to him
>the invaders were moments from capturing moscow, but soviets held off
>the invaders were moments from taking stalingrad, but soviets managed to beat them in a battle that can only be considered hell on earth
>he saw the burnt villages
>he saw the concentration camps
>now he has all the germans at his mercy

How is rape and murder better than just rape

At least with the latter you leave the option of suicide or living to the victim, Hans

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Sarcasm is hard to read through text, even moreso on an imageboard occupied by genuine neo-nazis and neet larpers

Also,
>en.m.
Goddamn phoneposters, every time.

They still do

t. Russian

>Mass rapes were committed against Polish women and girls including during punitive executions of Polish citizens, before shooting of the women.[88] Additionally, large numbers of Polish women were routinely captured with the aim of forcing them into serving in German military brothels.[89] Mass raids were conducted by the Nazis in many Polish cities with the express aim of capturing young women, later forced to work in brothels attended by German soldiers and officers.[89] Girls as young as 15 years old, who were ostensibly classified as "suitable for agricultural work in Germany", were sexually exploited by German soldiers at their places of destination.[89]"

Exactly.

Rape on German women is a lie.

...

do you think hitler would suck my dick for a chocolate bar?

Yes, there was. And there is a lot of well substantiated evidence for it.

Is that why Pollacks are so incredibly butthurt? Because they got cucked twice, first by Germans and then by Russians?

>Nazis Dindu Nuffin on the eastern front, they wuz liberators
Why is this opinion perpetuated by the American school system nowdays.
Were the americans always this clueless or have i just gotten older?

The thing I hate about these debates is that, as the Germans lost WW2 unconditionally and in totality, they had no control whatsoever over what kind of information was produced or released about the war after the fact, whereas the victors could censor and disseminate at will.

I really have a hard time believing that an entire army had a "Generalplan Oest" mentality of genocide and mass rape as they made their way across Eastern Europe and I would leave it to the masters of lies and propaganda in the Soviets to come up with as much fabrication as possible after the fact.

For chocolate bar, no. But for shot of meth?

Wow those are really nice diddies.

>The thing I hate about these debates is that, as the Germans lost WW2 unconditionally and in totality, they had no control whatsoever over what kind of information was produced or released about the war after the fact, whereas the victors could censor and disseminate at will.

Yeah, like in WW1! The "Stab in the back" story was actually disseminated by the French!

Victors write the history is the dumbest meme in the universe. Hell, up until pretty recently, the main source of information (in the West) about the Eastern Front WAS from German memoirs and archival sources.

Same thing about all of the "death camps" conspicuously being in Soviet held territory where who the fuck knows what happened after the war ended and the new occupiers could do and say as they pleased.

Not saying it didn't happen, and I fully believe the Nazis had a wide scale program of Jewish/gypsy/undesirable internment and concentration that led to many deaths due to malnourishment, disease, and execution, some of the other details just make no sense.

I've only gotten more skeptical as of late. The past election cycle proved, to me, you could literally rewrite the history of a year, a month, a day ago. It is all in who trusts you and who is even going to try to speak against what you're saying, and who supports you. I don't like sounding like a conspiratard but I really don't think half of history is as how we believe it to be.

>was from German memoirs and archival sources

Which could have been selectively chosen and disseminated? Even fabricated? Is it really that hard to forge things when anyone associated with it who could deny would be dead or jailed at that point? Even intimidated into a false confession?

We know what the USSR was capable of with their own people, that is documented. Why do you think they went all impartial and honest with the Nazis in particular? I wouldn't. They were blood enemies at that point.

>they had no control whatsoever over what kind of information was produced or released about the war after
They had, their previous actions. If they were not murdering people by millions they would hardly be remembered so.

>I really have a hard time believing that an entire army had a "Generalplan Oest" mentality of genocide and mass rape as they made their way across Eastern Europe
Majority of people are sheep who just follow orders, even more so in totalitarian army. You just need a few cunts on the top and you'll have entire army of cunts.

>everything could be fabricated, therefore we don't know anything
Holocaust denial always derives in solipsism.

Why is scrutiny so wrong? Do you simply want to believe you know 99% of the truth? I don't "deny" it. I think it may have been overblown.

I'm not really so interested in the Holocaust debate though, just the insinuation that they were the epitome of an evil army in their entirety.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that of the circa 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, about 5 million lived in either Poland, the USSR, Hungary, or Romania. You know, where the Jews lived. Or are all population censuses from about 1920-1950 Soviet propaganda too?

>some of the other details just make no sense.

Like the traces of HCN found over the Auschwitz site and in the hair samples when the Forensic Institute of Cracow went over it in the 1990s?

>Which could have been selectively chosen and disseminated? Even fabricated? Is it really that hard to forge things when anyone associated with it who could deny would be dead or jailed at that point? Even intimidated into a false confession?

user, you're talking a conspiracy of massive proportions. How could such a necessarily huge organization keep itself clandestine for close to 70 years? German universities weren't shut down post war. (West) German academics weren't jailed, or interfered with when they went about their work. They were certainly free to publish their side of things.

What evidence do you have that anything was forged, anyone was intimidated into falsley confessing, other than your "suspicion".

>We know what the USSR was capable of with their own people, that is documented. Why do you think they went all impartial and honest with the Nazis in particular?

user, you do know that there was academic work on the Eastern Front OUTSIDE THE USSR, right? That in fact, up utnil the late 90s, the entirety of Western thought of what was going on there had only the most minimal of influence from Soviet sources, because the West and the Soviets weren't on the best terms. Generalplan Ost, the mass rapes, the executions and deportations, are way older than western access to Soviet archival material.

To get this claim to stick, you need to believe that it wasn't just the Soviets, but that Western German academics were also intimidated and jailed and interfered with.

Whoops, the second half is in response to

The Germans had barely enough people to man an ever expanding Frontline at first, then later were too busy trying to keep it all from collapsing.
The russians had every convict thug and rapist they could find enlisted and had 11x more troops.

>The russians had every convict thug and rapist they could find enlisted and had 11x more troops.

So I gotta ask. Why does bad information eclipse actually accurate information so easily?

usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

Here's a Combat Studies Institute essay on Operation Bagration, 1944.

Skip down to page 70 of the PDF. The Soviets had less than double the troops on the Eastern Front, nevermind all the German troops committed to other fronts, in 1944.

>I think it may have been overblown.
Because of your feelings, right? You know such claim would imply a world-wide conspiracy?

>the insinuation that they were the epitome of an evil army in their entirety
Well, they were certainly trying to be so. Only positive aspects could be liberation of Balticum and defense of Finland and they did not exactely helped the Balts and Finns were sold during RM pact. The rest of their actions were offensive wars often accompanied with genocides.

People who know better than you have written whole books about this which you could read rather than making up shit on the internet.

Where did i say scrutiny is bad? Claiming everything could be fake is just solipsism though (and not really scrutiny).
I mean sure, it is logically possible that documents, testimnonies, studies, photos, etc are all forged and all historians are in on some conspiracy, the same way it is logically possible that i'm connected to the matrix right now and you don't exist.

My evidence isn't concrete, I don't think it's possible for there to be almost any concrete counter evidence, which follows from my premise. I know it isn't a basis from which you can from an argument. I don't know if it's even possible at this point.

Do I think Western German academics could be intimidated and interfered with? Absolutely. Do I think the access, and flow, of any and all information regarding German plans and documentation could have been seized and disseminated selectively (and selectively is the choice word, as this is what frames history), yes.

My skepticism is due to a few things. As I've grown older and read a little more some narratives I've been fed as "historically accurate" in my American education have been proven to be false or misleading. Things like "Hitler hated Jesse Owens" (when he actually congratulated him and sent him the gift of a tree where FDR wouldn't even send him a phone call), "Nazis made human skin books and lampshades", doctored images of "executions", etc. I think there's already a standing trend of sensationalizing everything and anything the Germans did as it follows the narrative of being the epitome of an evil empire and people love to indulge in that kind of characterization.

Yet we forget about some things in education. Dresden and other allied bombings, Soviet rape in Germany and war crimes within their counter offensive, American firebombings in Japan, things that should, by rights, be considered reprehensible but are frankly ignored. Is the degree and severity of German policy and conduct in WW2 really that much worse than what could be construed as typical wartime barbarity, or is selective presentation and dissemination of facts, real or not, producing a bloated idea of the German army as a raping, genociding, war crime ridden outfit in comparison to their "moral" opponents?

But your poor and innocent germans had the time to create their own version of history and propaganda.

>""""invaded"""" (((Pooland)))

wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/deathinpoland/dp00.html

>Search "Important quotations for a better understanding of ww2"

DAILY REMINDER THAT POLAND MOBILIZED ITS TROOPS FIRST IN AUGUST OF 1939, WHICH AMOUNTED TO A DE FACTO DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY

On top of that, Poland previously made multiple offerings towards France during the 20's and 30's to invade Germany, this was known to Berlin since a long time.

Then there was also:

- Countless polish atrocities commited against ethnic germans between 1918 1939 (bromberg bloody sunday et al)
- Violation of the minority treaties by Poland in 1937
- Britain and France delivering a guarantee to Poland that they'd invade Germany if Germany defends itself against polish agression, which made Poland decline all the german peace offerings (this also violated the polish-german friendship treaty from 1934 btw)
- Poland ignoring the proposed 16 point peace plan of hitler

de.metapedia.org/wiki/Chronologie_antideutscher_Gewalt_von_Polen
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polnische_Verbrechen_an_Volksdeutschen_zwischen_1918_und_1939
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polen_als_Aggressor_1918–1938
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polnischer_Imperialismus
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polenfeldzug#Eskalation_durch_polnische_Grenzprovokationen
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Zollinspektorenstreit
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Abstimmungsgebiet_Oberschlesien#Polnischer_Terror
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polnische_Paßkrise
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Polnische_Konzentrationslager
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Oder-Neiße-Linie#Polnische_und_panslawistische_Grenzvorstellungen_vor_dem_Zweiten_Weltkrieg
de.metapedia.org/wiki/Urpolnische_Erde

>Yet we forget about some things in education. Dresden and other allied bombings
Becauset that shit is irrelevant and inconsequential in the grand scale of things?

Why the hell should it be added to education, when teachers are lucky if your average American does not say that WW1 was against Mexico?

>Do I think Western German academics could be intimidated and interfered with?

But that's not the question. Do you think they HAVE been intimidated and interfered with, and on what basis are you thinking that?

>. Dresden and other allied bombings,

So you had a shitty education. Mine mentioned it. And stuff on the Allied bombings is easily available.

amazon.com/Bomber-Command-Zenith-Military-Classics/dp/0760345201

>Soviet rape in Germany and war crimes within their counter offensive,

And yet it's well known enough to make a Veeky Forums thread about it?

> American firebombings in Japan,

You mean, the ones that had been known to kill more people than the atomic bombings for over 50 years?

>be considered reprehensible but are frankly ignored.

But they aren't ignored. Anyone can access them, and get the primary documentation on them. Most people don't, to be sure, but the information is out there, available, which speaks against some shadowy cabal suppressing shit.

> Is the degree and severity of German policy and conduct in WW2 really that much worse than what could be construed as typical wartime barbarity,

Why don't you read Hans Frank's diaries (another publicly available document if you're willing to go through it all at length) and draw your own conclusion?

>or is selective presentation and dissemination of facts, real or not, producing a bloated idea of the German army as a raping, genociding, war crime ridden outfit in comparison to their "moral" opponents?

So, your entire construct is based around a non-existant strawman brought about by shitty education? I'm done here, but you should really, really take a look at actual academic work on the Second World War, where none of the shit you mentioned exists.

>m-muh based aryan liberators
Fuck off
Over 500 brothels were created on occupied territories and thousands of women were forced to work there.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_brothels_in_World_War_II
>haaretz.com/news/secrets-of-nazi-camp-brothels-emerge-in-german-exhibition-1.225307
Over 1 million children were born as a result of mass rape by the germans. Females from 15 to 70 were tortured, raped and murdered.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#Rapes_2

>Author Ursula Schele, estimated in the Journal "Zur Debatte um die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944" that in one of ten sexual intercourse with German soldiers would have lead to pregnancy and therefore its probable, while not provable that up to ten millions womans in the Soviet Union could have been raped by the Wehrmacht.[85]:9
>gegenwind.info/175/sonderheft_wehrmacht.pdf

>In Soviet Russia rapes were only a concern if they undermined military discipline.[86] Since 1941, rape was theoretically punishable with the death sentence, although, rapes were rarely prosecuted in practice and rapes by Germans of non-German women were not taken seriously, nor was it punishable by death, especially in the eastern European territories.[83]:288 In October 1940 the laws on rape were changed, making it a "petitioned crime" – that is a crime for which punishment had to be requested. Historian Christa Paul writes that this resulted in "a nearly complete absence of prosecution and punishment for rape".[83]:288

Nice meme, OP. Got me to reply.

Because it frames our perception of the war? Kids are taught the Americans, British, and Soviets were the moralists in a war for good against the most evil entity of all time.

>But that's not the question. Do you think they HAVE been intimidated and interfered with, and on what basis are you thinking that?

Precedence, from both Soviet and American authorities. Censorship isn't new.

>So you had a shitty education. Mine mentioned it. And stuff on the Allied bombings is easily available.

I don't understand. The bombing occurred, correct? Civilian targets? Is this book supposed to provide a moralist rationalization for it?

>And yet it's well known enough to make a Veeky Forums thread about it?

We are on Veeky Forums. I'm speaking more about general perception. You're going to find a thread about why lizard people control the planet on Veeky Forums.

>You mean, the ones that had been known to kill more people than the atomic bombings for over 50 years?

They were known but they aren't held against America. A thread like this for example, everyone has heard time and again how the Germans raped, pillaged, and slaughtered their way around Europe and were clearly the "wrong", and exceptionally morally destitute. It isn't balanced and weighed against the entire body of war crimes because, as the losers, they have no advocates.

>So, your entire construct is based around a non-existant strawman brought about by shitty education? I'm done here, but you should really, really take a look at actual academic work on the Second World War, where none of the shit you mentioned exists.

It isn't a shitty education. Why would you suggest I reference the select material I'm alluding to. I know plenty of literature exists on the war, I have been saying since the beginning that the frame of reference is biased. That's it. Maybe there isn't much to extend beyond that as it isn't a statement that can be proven or disproven conclusively, that's fine.

I don't understand, are you questioning academian historians or your high school teachings? Why are those things that weren't taught in your school accepted in academia if academics are intimidated? What are your problems with academia specifically?

>Precedence, from both Soviet and American authorities. Censorship isn't new.

user, I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure you had the means and opportunity to murder someone in your immediate social life. Therefore, since there is a precedent of murder, by your argument, you HAVE killed someone. Why'd you do it, user?

Or, you could realize that just because something is possible, doesn't mean it actually happened.

> Is this book supposed to provide a moralist rationalization for it?

No, it isn't. It's pretty scathing, actually. It mostly focuses on how the bombing campaign developed, from the British perspective (The American stuff is only dealt with insofar as it affected British policy and operations.)

>I'm speaking more about general perception.

And I'm speaking about academic perception, which is a better metric to go by than "general" perception, since the general population is ignorant of all sorts of crap that happens to be true. Fuck, the general perception of the Sherman tank in America is one that died in droves against German armor, and that isn't true either. What sort of bizarre propaganda logic yielded that one?

>They were known but they aren't held against America.

Yes they are, if you're in anti-war circles, or anti-bombing circles. It's mostly overshadowed by the anti-atomic circles, and that one is definitely held against America by large segments of people.

> It isn't balanced and weighed against the entire body of war crimes because, as the losers, they have no advocates.

Except of course, every German memoir that has been published which does advocate for just that.

>Why would you suggest I reference the select material I'm alluding to.

Because you're obviously not alluding to it, since you reveal patent ignorance about its contents. You seem to be primarily referring to grade school education, not university level material. Surprise: Education for children is simplified and glosses over complexity. That's nothing new, and it's certainly not restricted to WW2.

>I have been saying since the beginning that the frame of reference is biased.

And you've done a very poor job of justifying that claim.

>Maybe there isn't much to extend beyond that as it isn't a statement that can be proven or disproven conclusively, that's fine.

Except it can be disproven conclusively, since the primary material that led to said conclusions is available if you want to get your hands on it, and there are plenty of anti-western historical works concerning WW2.

>Because it frames our perception of the war?
It does not. Strategic bombing was commited by both sides, only and the end of the war had the allies total air superiority. In terms of muh rapes Germans were just as guilty as the soviets were. Not to mention rapes are kind of irrelevant compared to those villages burned to the ground. It's totally incomparable compared to atrocities of Axis.

>Kids are taught
Kids are taught that his compatriots are heroes and its enemies villains? Truly shocking!

btw Why are you not protesting about omiting the crimes of British imperialism and colonialism? There are worse skellingtons in that closet.

>Not to mention rapes are kind of irrelevant compared to those villages burned to the ground.

In fairness the initial Soviet incursions into Germany (before Stalin reigned them in) saw their fair share of brutality above and beyond rape.

>Naked German woman nailed to a burnt out barn

>"More than fifteen thousand Polish civilians had been murdered by German troops in Warsaw. At 5:30 that evening [August 5], General Erich von dem Bach gave the order for the execution of women and children to stop. But the killing continued of all Polish men who were captured, without anyone bothering to find out whether they were insurrectionists or not. Nor did either the Cossacks or the criminals in the Kaminsky and Dirlewanger brigades pay any attention to von dem Bach Zelewski's order: by rape, murder, torture and fire, they made their way through the suburbs of Wola and Ochota, killing in three days of slaughter a further thirty thousand civilians, including hundreds of patients in each of the hospitals in their path."[9]
It's not like the Germans were humanitarians.

Aye, it was expectable that Russians would commit disgusting shit once they they got their revenge.

But numbers still call them the lesser evil.

All these naziboos ITT. Your boys lost and all your women had rape babies. Get over it. They got what was coming to them.

>DAILY REMINDER THAT POLAND MOBILIZED ITS TROOPS FIRST IN AUGUST OF 1939, WHICH AMOUNTED TO A DE FACTO DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY
believe it or not, you need to mobilize your troops to defend yourself, especially when your infrastructure is markedly inferior to German infrastructure.

Regardless, Poland did not mobilize troops first. Germany had mobilized in August well before Poland issued mobilization orders, and Poland rescinded its mobilization order on the 30th of August in an attempt to defuse tensions after the Germans botched an earlier attack originally intended on the 26th.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabłonków_Incident

>On top of that, Poland previously made multiple offerings towards France during the 20's and 30's to invade Germany
I don't know about Poland, but in 1938 the French had wanted to invade Germany if they invaded Czechoslovakia and had only been stopped by British Apathy. And it would have been a damn good idea.

>Britain and France delivering a guarantee to Poland that they'd invade Germany if Germany defends itself against polish agression
Bullshit.
>avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp
>Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
Either power was only bound to assist the other if it were attacked. Which Poland was.
>which made Poland decline all the german peace offerings
There was no need for a peace offering had Germany not started a war.
>Poland ignoring the proposed 16 point peace plan of hitler
Possibly because Germany was actively engaged in absorbing its neighbors while giving lip service to peace plans.

>I don't understand. The bombing occurred, correct? Civilian targets? Is this book supposed to provide a moralist rationalization for it?
Remind me again, was Goering ever prosecuted at Nuremberg for bombing and killing civilians in London, Rotterdam or Warsaw? Naziboos love pretending that any death of civilians by bombing is a war crime when they casually overlook how not a single German officer was prosecuted for bombing cities with far lower strategic value than Dresden. What you don't understand that under laws of Proportionality, civilian deaths are excusable should they be the incidental result of targeting legitimate military targets.

And there's no doubt Dresden was a legitimate military target. Dresden had:
-A major railway transit point for moving German soldiers from the Eastern Front to the Western front and vice versa
-110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid.[35]
- aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabrik Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); as well as factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch & Sterzel AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebrüder Bassler).
-barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.[36]
Before you cry about Dresden again read up on proportionality and the background of the actual bombings before you pretend that this was some novel Allied atrocity.

user, he hasn't even read Bomber Command or knows the central thesis of the book, namely that the British decision towards strategic bombing had far more to do with internal military politics than a rational response to strategic reality.

You're responding either to a naziboo trying to hide it or a complete ignorant displaying ridiculous skepticism towards everything he doesn't understand.

The Russian troops were like animals. The Wermacht had at least a little more restraint. I ain't even saying this as a /pol/tard; I hate Nazis. However, the USSR and its army was worse in various ways.

Then why did the (smaller) Wehrmacht commit about 5 times as many rapes?

Because they shot all the civilians. There simply was nobody to rape.

The Wehrmacht was really the most advanced for it's time army in the past 10 centuries they only lost because the winter of 43' was cold also also because the Italians dragged them into Africa also the Luftwaffe would have been better if there weren't so many supply shortages once they had jets by the way did you know that not all nazis were evil some of them were okay people the holocaust happened but it probably wasn't as severe as people say it was-
INHALE

it wouldn't have feasible to use precious fuel and resources doing something that didn't contribute to the war effort did you know that Albert Speer was a really good architect also he didn't know about the holocaust so he's not a bad guy also Hugo Boss designed the uniforms don't they look cool they look so cool dude all the German generals were really smart it's just that Hitler kept making bad decisions if it weren't for him the Wehrmacht totally would have repelled D-Day and captured Moscow and Stalingrad did you know that Hitler didn't want to bomb civilians in London it's just that the British accidentally bombed some civilians in Germany and that made him retaliate also the firebombing of Dresden was way worse also did I mention that the only reason the Germans lost is because of Italy and the winter of 43' being really cold and Hitler not crowning Rommel grand Fuhrer of the Wehrmact and god-emperor of all things
INHALE

Anyway, I'm gonna catch you guys later. Let me know if you want to play some Hearts of Iron 3

>How could such a necessarily huge organization keep itself clandestine for close to 70 years?
you know nothing my friend

anyone bring up yet that the Nazi had a literal rape division?

perfect

I'm no expert but I assume raping was done.

>Invaders rape our women
"Well it's always been like that"

>Your allies liberate your land and rape your women
"What the fuck man that's fucked up this is going down in History I promise"

The American school system does not perpetuate that whatsoever.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHY NO PEASANT WAIFU REEEEEEEEEEE

>German men start war
>German men lose war
>German women side with winners over losers
reeeeeeeeeeee

>muslim style
Ever read the Bible? Especially 1 Corinthians? All of European Christian women used to wear them until pretty recently.

>i will be a virgin shitposting on the internet
>I wont be a soviet peasant whos seen some shit and arrives to free pussy

just end my life senpai

>Why is this opinion perpetuated by the American school system nowdays.
Eastern European (Slovak) here. My grandfather used to tell me that in '44 when the war reached Slovakia, German troops into town and treated people with respect, all the moves were first discussed with the local richtar (something like a mayor or a reeve), when the soldiers had to be housed by the locals they always slept in the barn, the stable or the back room instead of kicking the inhabitants out, and they generally were firendly with the villagers, gave out candy to children, etc.

Then after the frontline crossed over and Red Army "liberators" (Romanians in this case - not Russians) arrived, it was nothing short of complete savagery. Several women got raped. Grandpa's neighbor wanted to slaughter a pig for the soldiers as a sign of hopsitality, but when they saw him taking the pig they beat him up, stole the pig AND all the other pigs and burned down the pigsty. A girl got strangled by a Romanian soldier when she discovered him stealing family jewerly, the villagers complained about it to the commander and he laughed them out of the building and never did anything about the soldier. The villagers, even pregnant women, were told to fuck off and sleep in the barn because the communist soldiers wanted to be in the heated main room, etc.

I thought this might have been an isolated case but I talked to people from all over Eastern Europe, Serbia to Estonia, and a vast majority of them also have granparents or great grandparents with similar stories, friendly Germans vs savage communists. Really makes you think, since it completely goes against the mainstream narrative.

>Eastern European (Slovak) here.

>Really makes you think, since it completely goes against the mainstream narrative.

Yes, the Nazis treating the people of a puppet government they created, raised troops for them, and actively aided in the war effort (a minority, to be sure, but about 5% of the troops that invaded Poland were Slovakian) would be treated better than the soldiers of a hostile nation marching through.

It really makes me think you're dumb. Why don't you hop across to the Eastern European nations where the Nazis weren't playing so nice, like say, Poland, or Lithuania, both of which had death tolls of the overall population at around 20% of the pre-war total.

>don't be hostile to the Germans and the Germans won't be hostile to you

Yeah I imagine it really is that simple.

>Be a puppet of the Germans and (maybe) they won't butcher you all.

FTFY.

But don't forget, even alliance wasn't everything it was cracked up to be. Germany was perfectly willing to ally with Romania on one hand and sign over Bessarabia to the Soviets with the other. They were perfectly willing to cut all food shipment to the Netherlands to try to burden the advancing Allied armies with the strain of feeding the civilian population. They had those little groups called Einsatzgruppen who murdered literally millions.

But they were good bois. Dindu nuffin.

German SS divisions wiped out entire villages and killed everyone in them in France. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same thing in Eastern Europe to those who they saw as inferior?

>Dresden and other allied bombings
Funny how you are forgetting the Blitz, or the ordered destruction of Warsaw?

Think that the 60s was a mistake?

LOL

>German troops enter southern and western Ukraine and are greeted as liberators
>willing to work with the Germans against the Russians
>Hitler orders that 40% are to be used as slave labor and the remaining 60% are to be starved as subhumans

a detox is healthy from time to time

Coincidentally the atrocities only happened after massive partisan activity outbreak in the area. The exact same thing as in Belarus. I don't think it's a coincidence, now is it?

youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20

Uh-huh. That's why partisan activity cropped up everywhere they went, and why they needed to exterminate men, women, and children to stop it.

fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJager.htm

RAF kicked its arse

>rape and kill a woman and burn down their villages
>"uh, yeah, sir, they were all partisans"
>"the kids too. And the farm animals"

And what exactly was the event that turned Ukrainians from potential allies of the nazis to one of the hotbeds of partisan resistance? (Hint: Reichskommissar Erich Koch on orders from Berlin)

The guys in that video are so full of shit.
>so you were defending Europe from Bolshevism
>by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviets, invading France (which had outlawed the Communist Party in 1938), invading most of the Balkans, invading the Netherlands and Belgium, invading Denmark and Norway, bombing the United Kingdom, attacking British African possessions, supporting Japan in their war on both China and the United States, etc.

Fucking Jews, forcing the Germans to ally with Communists against the anti-communists

Not him, but there's actually pretty good evidence that Koch was an independently retarded instead of following Berlin, in fact he constantly enraged the military staff by antagonizing the Ukrainians and thus sabotaging Germany's interests.

IIRC some people in the German government even believed he might've been actually a Soviet agent because it was so blatant.

The German army was a lot more disciplined than the Soviet army.
At the breakout of WW2 I don't think the Soviets were bound by any treaties regarding conduct in battle.
The Germans were, and had a tradition of strong discipline in war. Though I'm sure by 1945 it had broken down severely the Red Army would have given no fucks right from the beginning.
The flipside is that the Nazi party would have certainly ordered soldiers to abandon their culture of martial conduct to inflict terror and suffering on their enemies, so unless soldiers deliberately disobeyed they would have been brutal cunts for sure.

nazi-posters confirmed for the biggest dindus in history.

>I don't think the Soviets were bound by any treaties regarding conduct in battle.
Only the Japanese had not agreed to that treaty IIRC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#Rapes_2

This, same thing happened in the balkans. My partisan grand-grand father always reluctantly admitted how the germans treated the wounded from all sides and they had a tendency to always pay for their accomodations and food. Meanwhile, the red army passes through a tiny patch of yugoslavia and suddenly there were hundreds of reports looting and murder.

Thats quite common observation, expectable from the conditions each army had to lived in.

The fun part, about Germans, starts when you stop being a total cuck.

Veeky Forums is starting to get extremely lewd

like

not actually blue lewd

so we're just going to make Africa the designated chimpout zone?

OMG NO IT IS EUROPE

...

t. Jozef Tiso