opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.... and if my opinion does not agree with yours dont say i dont understand the subject i just have a different opinionVaregg wrote:
Actually stating you have studied this subject and still have the opinion you share with us proves you are totally incompetent of understanding what you studied ...bad-man wrote:
obviously you're ignorant about what happened in concentration camps and so i want be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.Gawwad wrote:
I'll let you re-read the posts, if you still can't comprehend I won't be wasting my time here.
You managed to miss the point in two posts in a row.
He should get one kick to the balls for every person who died at the camp.
You dont understand the subject because you have no concept that a lot of these people were forced into doing what they did, knowing full well that if they didnt do what they were told they and they're family would be at risk.bad-man wrote:
opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.... and if my opinion does not agree with yours dont say i dont understand the subject i just have a different opinionVaregg wrote:
Actually stating you have studied this subject and still have the opinion you share with us proves you are totally incompetent of understanding what you studied ...bad-man wrote:
obviously you're ignorant about what happened in concentration camps and so i want be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.
Yes you can have the opinion he should be punsished, but that means every single nazi soldier still alive should be punished. Is that what you think? Cos clearly they all wanted to go to war and kill many millions of people, cos thats what Hitler thought, so every single german must have thought it!
/facepalm
It's not that you don't agree with me that's your problem ... you have proven your ignorance on the subject just by posting in this thread, each post you made shows you have a huge gap in your knowledge concerning this issue and to even say you have studied it just makes it worse ...bad-man wrote:
opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.... and if my opinion does not agree with yours dont say i dont understand the subject i just have a different opinionVaregg wrote:
Actually stating you have studied this subject and still have the opinion you share with us proves you are totally incompetent of understanding what you studied ...bad-man wrote:
obviously you're ignorant about what happened in concentration camps and so i want be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.
But please elaborate and share your wealth of knowledge to change my mind about your opinion on the matter if you can ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
um, what? Iraq did not attack America. You sir fail.bad-man wrote:
americans responded to attack, germans did not, they were the attackerbennisboy wrote:
You sir are ignorant. Do you really think every single German agreed with Hitler's views? Its like saying every single american agreed that invading Iraq was good cos bush did.bad-man wrote:
germans had no business attacking half the fucking world, no one raided their country so its not like they had to defend themselves - it was all about power and racial cleansing ....
old man should be punished....
All your points are invalid.
for the 5th fucking time, i understand some germans were forced into becoming solders and they had to follow orders... this solders orders were to be a guard at the concentration camp... up to this point he was doing his work and obligation.... now... he chooses to kill, murder and rape on his own accord .... he should be punishedbennisboy wrote:
You dont understand the subject because you have no concept that a lot of these people were forced into doing what they did, knowing full well that if they didnt do what they were told they and they're family would be at risk.
Yes you can have the opinion he should be punsished, but that means every single nazi soldier still alive should be punished. Is that what you think? Cos clearly they all wanted to go to war and kill many millions of people, cos thats what Hitler thought, so every single german must have thought it!
/facepalm
im not changing or trying to change anyones opinion, im simply stating mine..... you keep yoursVaregg wrote:
But please elaborate and share your wealth of knowledge to change my mind about your opinion on the matter if you can ...
at the time, our president had in-telligence stating that taliban is residing / being help by iraqVilham wrote:
um, what? Iraq did not attack America. You sir fail.
All your points are invalid.
at the time, Germany's dictator had intelligence stating that Jews were untermenche (or however you spell it).bad-man wrote:
at the time, our president had in-telligence stating that taliban is residing / being help by iraqVilham wrote:
um, what? Iraq did not attack America. You sir fail.
All your points are invalid.
So anyway what was your point other than George Bush is a fucking retard?
1. If he did murder anyone, why is he only being charged with 'accessory to murder'?bad-man wrote:
for the 5th fucking time, i understand some germans were forced into becoming solders and they had to follow orders... this solders orders were to be a guard at the concentration camp... up to this point he was doing his work and obligation.... now... he chooses to kill, murder and rape on his own accord .... he should be punished
2. The article says nothing about rape
3. Kill and murder are the same thing.
4. He has already been arrested, imprisoned, extradited to Israel, sentenced to death, had citizen ship revoked and restored and revoked again all over mistaken identity and shit people know nothing about (obviously).
You clearly didnt study WW2 very well if you think all concentration camp guards were acting of their own accordbad-man wrote:
for the 5th fucking time, i understand some germans were forced into becoming solders and they had to follow orders... this solders orders were to be a guard at the concentration camp... up to this point he was doing his work and obligation.... now... he chooses to kill, murder and rape on his own accord .... he should be punishedbennisboy wrote:
You dont understand the subject because you have no concept that a lot of these people were forced into doing what they did, knowing full well that if they didnt do what they were told they and they're family would be at risk.
Yes you can have the opinion he should be punsished, but that means every single nazi soldier still alive should be punished. Is that what you think? Cos clearly they all wanted to go to war and kill many millions of people, cos thats what Hitler thought, so every single german must have thought it!
/facepalm
wrong wrong wrong.bennisboy wrote:
Some of you people shock me. He was following out his orders. Its more than likely he had no choice. Odds are he was brought into the army through conscription anyway. I doubt he signed up so he could kill jews!
If he hadnt done what he was told he'd have probably ended up in a camp along with his whole family because he hadn't followed orders.
You cant punish someone for doing something they had no real choice in. It would be like punishing someone for what they did while a mad-man was holding a gun to their head and following their orders
first of all, he was a ukrainian, not a german citizen. he wasn't forced to serve in the concentration camp, he voluntarily did
second, historians agree about the fact, that no german member of the wehrmacht, the waffen-ss, the sicherheitspolizei etc. had to fear for his life, if he didn't participate in murdering jews or other civilians, pow's etc.
for example, the waffen-ss-men that were sent to the einsatzgruppen in order to mainly kill jews or the germans that went with the reservepolizeibataillone in order to mainly kill jews could resist killing innocent civilians and wouldn't have had to fear for their lives. the same goes for the kz-guards. they probably would have faced some sort of punishment, but nothing very serious (the men of the reservepolizeibataillon none at all)
most of them didn't resisit because of other reasons: peer pressure, alcohol, "masulinity" reasons (in order not to be called a coward etc.) etc. (i recommend christopher browning's "ordinary men" - the study about the reservepolizeibataillon 101)
there's not one case recorded, where a german was shot bec he refused to kill civilians. but i admit to threaten them for example with being sent to the eastern front may have been a strong point...
Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2009-03-12 16:14:43)
bad-man, the US was never attacked by Saddam Hussein. The US was attacked by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Frankly, if you want to blame anyone for Islamic terrorism in the world, I suggest to you that you start with Saudi Arabia. Then head over to the UK and talk to the British government about how they allowed groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir to flourish and grow and other splinter Islamist (note: NOT Islamic, Islamist) groups.
To that I say: study the map. The Taliban would have had to cross through all of Iran to get to Iraq. Once again, it was al-Qaeda that Bush thought Saddam was liaising with, not the Taliban. The Taliban as a group lacks any central leadership, anyway. There are many splinter groups operating in Afghanistan, some willing to negotiate, but most not.
That being said, my great-grandfather was conscripted to fight in the Nazi army in Austria to hold off the Soviets. He died days before the end of the war. His wife and two other women had to go and collect their husbands' bodies from the field and didn't know whose body was whose from the three they had. They buried them altogether.
Personally, though, Mao's China and people from Soviet Russia need to also be brought to justice. Not just them, but former members of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Sudanese government (which is starting to happen for Sudan and Cambodia) and any number of other groups who perpetrated mass murder and genocide.
bad-man wrote:
at the time, our president had in-telligence stating that taliban is residing / being help by iraq
To that I say: study the map. The Taliban would have had to cross through all of Iran to get to Iraq. Once again, it was al-Qaeda that Bush thought Saddam was liaising with, not the Taliban. The Taliban as a group lacks any central leadership, anyway. There are many splinter groups operating in Afghanistan, some willing to negotiate, but most not.
That being said, my great-grandfather was conscripted to fight in the Nazi army in Austria to hold off the Soviets. He died days before the end of the war. His wife and two other women had to go and collect their husbands' bodies from the field and didn't know whose body was whose from the three they had. They buried them altogether.
Personally, though, Mao's China and people from Soviet Russia need to also be brought to justice. Not just them, but former members of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Sudanese government (which is starting to happen for Sudan and Cambodia) and any number of other groups who perpetrated mass murder and genocide.
al-Qaeda is what i ment to say, thanks for the correction.CapnNismo wrote:
bad-man, the US was never attacked by Saddam Hussein. The US was attacked by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Frankly, if you want to blame anyone for Islamic terrorism in the world, I suggest to you that you start with Saudi Arabia. Then head over to the UK and talk to the British government about how they allowed groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir to flourish and grow and other splinter Islamist (note: NOT Islamic, Islamist) groups.http://www.homepagez.com/pakhistory/Middle-East-map.gifbad-man wrote:
at the time, our president had in-telligence stating that taliban is residing / being help by iraq
To that I say: study the map. The Taliban would have had to cross through all of Iran to get to Iraq. Once again, it was al-Qaeda that Bush thought Saddam was liaising with, not the Taliban. The Taliban as a group lacks any central leadership, anyway. There are many splinter groups operating in Afghanistan, some willing to negotiate, but most not.
That being said, my great-grandfather was conscripted to fight in the Nazi army in Austria to hold off the Soviets. He died days before the end of the war. His wife and two other women had to go and collect their husbands' bodies from the field and didn't know whose body was whose from the three they had. They buried them altogether.
Personally, though, Mao's China and people from Soviet Russia need to also be brought to justice. Not just them, but former members of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Sudanese government (which is starting to happen for Sudan and Cambodia) and any number of other groups who perpetrated mass murder and genocide.
And as we all know being sent to the Russian front equals getting shot for not obeying your orders ... beyond that there were quite a high number of military tribunals that ended with the soldier being shot for various reasons that historians believe was because they refused to follow orders while records states otherwise ...cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
wrong wrong wrong.bennisboy wrote:
Some of you people shock me. He was following out his orders. Its more than likely he had no choice. Odds are he was brought into the army through conscription anyway. I doubt he signed up so he could kill jews!
If he hadnt done what he was told he'd have probably ended up in a camp along with his whole family because he hadn't followed orders.
You cant punish someone for doing something they had no real choice in. It would be like punishing someone for what they did while a mad-man was holding a gun to their head and following their orders
first of all, he was a ukrainian, not a german citizen. he wasn't forced to serve in the concentration camp, he voluntarily did
second, historians agree about the fact, that no german member of the wehrmacht, the waffen-ss, the sicherheitspolizei etc. had to fear for his life, if he didn't participate in murdering jews or other civilians, pow's etc.
for example, the waffen-ss-men that were sent to the einsatzgruppen in order to mainly kill jews or the germans that went with the reservepolizeibataillone in order to mainly kill jews could resist killing innocent civilians and wouldn't have had to fear for their lives. the same goes for the kz-guards. they probably would have faced some sort of punishment, but nothing very serious (the men of the reservepolizeibataillon none at all)
most of them didn't resisit because of other reasons: peer pressure, alcohol, "masulinity" reasons (in order not to be called a coward etc.) etc. (i recommend christopher browning's "ordinary men" - the study about the reservepolizeibataillon 101)
there's not one case recorded, where a german was shot bec he refused to kill civilians. but i admit to threaten them for example with being sent to the eastern front may have been a strong point...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Your problem is you have a really hard time defending your opinion which shouldn't be that hard if you really had some knowledge about the issue ...bad-man wrote:
im not changing or trying to change anyones opinion, im simply stating mine..... you keep yoursVaregg wrote:
But please elaborate and share your wealth of knowledge to change my mind about your opinion on the matter if you can ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
1. threatening to be sent to the eastern front was very rare. furthermore, since 1943/44, every man who could hold a gun was sent at the front, so the ones in the concentration camps were mostly very old or severely injured men that really couldn't fightVaregg wrote:
And as we all know being sent to the Russian front equals getting shot for not obeying your orders ... beyond that there were quite a high number of military tribunals that ended with the soldier being shot for various reasons that historians believe was because they refused to follow orders while records states otherwise ...cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
wrong wrong wrong.bennisboy wrote:
Some of you people shock me. He was following out his orders. Its more than likely he had no choice. Odds are he was brought into the army through conscription anyway. I doubt he signed up so he could kill jews!
If he hadnt done what he was told he'd have probably ended up in a camp along with his whole family because he hadn't followed orders.
You cant punish someone for doing something they had no real choice in. It would be like punishing someone for what they did while a mad-man was holding a gun to their head and following their orders
first of all, he was a ukrainian, not a german citizen. he wasn't forced to serve in the concentration camp, he voluntarily did
second, historians agree about the fact, that no german member of the wehrmacht, the waffen-ss, the sicherheitspolizei etc. had to fear for his life, if he didn't participate in murdering jews or other civilians, pow's etc.
for example, the waffen-ss-men that were sent to the einsatzgruppen in order to mainly kill jews or the germans that went with the reservepolizeibataillone in order to mainly kill jews could resist killing innocent civilians and wouldn't have had to fear for their lives. the same goes for the kz-guards. they probably would have faced some sort of punishment, but nothing very serious (the men of the reservepolizeibataillon none at all)
most of them didn't resisit because of other reasons: peer pressure, alcohol, "masulinity" reasons (in order not to be called a coward etc.) etc. (i recommend christopher browning's "ordinary men" - the study about the reservepolizeibataillon 101)
there's not one case recorded, where a german was shot bec he refused to kill civilians. but i admit to threaten them for example with being sent to the eastern front may have been a strong point...
2. german soldiers were shot for not obeying orders, desertion, absence without leave etc., BUT NOT BECAUSE OF REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE!!!!!
Eh I'm no Nazi sympathizer but I don't like the idea of sending out a countries citizens to other countries in order for them to be jailed.
What's with the shouting?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
1. threatening to be sent to the eastern front was very rare. furthermore, since 1943/44, every man who could hold a gun was sent at the front, so the ones in the concentration camps were mostly very old or severely injured men that really couldn't fightVaregg wrote:
And as we all know being sent to the Russian front equals getting shot for not obeying your orders ... beyond that there were quite a high number of military tribunals that ended with the soldier being shot for various reasons that historians believe was because they refused to follow orders while records states otherwise ...cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
wrong wrong wrong.
first of all, he was a ukrainian, not a german citizen. he wasn't forced to serve in the concentration camp, he voluntarily did
second, historians agree about the fact, that no german member of the wehrmacht, the waffen-ss, the sicherheitspolizei etc. had to fear for his life, if he didn't participate in murdering jews or other civilians, pow's etc.
for example, the waffen-ss-men that were sent to the einsatzgruppen in order to mainly kill jews or the germans that went with the reservepolizeibataillone in order to mainly kill jews could resist killing innocent civilians and wouldn't have had to fear for their lives. the same goes for the kz-guards. they probably would have faced some sort of punishment, but nothing very serious (the men of the reservepolizeibataillon none at all)
most of them didn't resisit because of other reasons: peer pressure, alcohol, "masulinity" reasons (in order not to be called a coward etc.) etc. (i recommend christopher browning's "ordinary men" - the study about the reservepolizeibataillon 101)
there's not one case recorded, where a german was shot bec he refused to kill civilians. but i admit to threaten them for example with being sent to the eastern front may have been a strong point...
2. german soldiers were shot for not obeying orders, desertion, absence without leave etc., BUT NOT BECAUSE OF REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE!!!!!
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I'd kill civilians if I was ordered to under threat of imprisonment or death. I'm pretty sure most people would.
I could easily say I would never kill a puppy or a kitten, but if I got a job in a cat/dog home which euthanised animals I probably wouldn't refuse in those circumstances. Not that puppies and kittens are anything like humans, but people tend to overreact in cases of animal cruelty so I guess the analogy works.
I could easily say I would never kill a puppy or a kitten, but if I got a job in a cat/dog home which euthanised animals I probably wouldn't refuse in those circumstances. Not that puppies and kittens are anything like humans, but people tend to overreact in cases of animal cruelty so I guess the analogy works.
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
1. threatening to be sent to the eastern front was very rare. furthermore, since 1943/44, every man who could hold a gun was sent at the front, so the ones in the concentration camps were mostly very old or severely injured men that really couldn't fightVaregg wrote:
And as we all know being sent to the Russian front equals getting shot for not obeying your orders ... beyond that there were quite a high number of military tribunals that ended with the soldier being shot for various reasons that historians believe was because they refused to follow orders while records states otherwise ...
2. german soldiers were shot for not obeying orders, desertion, absence without leave etc., BUT NOT BECAUSE OF REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE!!!!!
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
I'm gonna go with what varegg said. If their orders were to shoot innocent civilians, if they didnt it would say on their record "shot for not following orders" or something like that, not "shot for not killing innocent people".cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
1. threatening to be sent to the eastern front was very rare. furthermore, since 1943/44, every man who could hold a gun was sent at the front, so the ones in the concentration camps were mostly very old or severely injured men that really couldn't fight
2. german soldiers were shot for not obeying orders, desertion, absence without leave etc., BUT NOT BECAUSE OF REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE!!!!!
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
You need to learn to read between the lines if u wanna get anywhere with your degree matey
Exactly.bennisboy wrote:
I'm gonna go with what varegg said. If their orders were to shoot innocent civilians, if they didnt it would say on their record "shot for not following orders" or something like that, not "shot for not killing innocent people".cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
You need to learn to read between the lines if u wanna get anywhere with your degree matey
Varegg has a point, Nazi soldiers were killed for disobeying orders. do you not think that killing civilians could have been some of those orders?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
1. threatening to be sent to the eastern front was very rare. furthermore, since 1943/44, every man who could hold a gun was sent at the front, so the ones in the concentration camps were mostly very old or severely injured men that really couldn't fight
2. german soldiers were shot for not obeying orders, desertion, absence without leave etc., BUT NOT BECAUSE OF REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE!!!!!
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
I believe cl4u53w1t2 is more right but I also know I'm not totally wrong, official records may say it didn't happen but knowing the German regime during WW2 it must have happened and infact German soldiers interviewed have stated it did happen but that's unofficial of course ... the SD was not known to take such matters lightly and examples were set to make sure the rest of the soldiers did as they were told ...ceslayer23 wrote:
Varegg has a point, Nazi soldiers were killed for disobeying orders. do you not think that killing civilians could have been some of those orders?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
1. i can read between the linesbennisboy wrote:
I'm gonna go with what varegg said. If their orders were to shoot innocent civilians, if they didnt it would say on their record "shot for not following orders" or something like that, not "shot for not killing innocent people".cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i wasn't shouting. i just wanted to emphasize my point bec i had written the same line in my first postVaregg wrote:
What's with the shouting?
1. Threats and actually being sent to the Russian front was rare but not very rare, the Germans transfered more soldiers between units than what is concidered average ...
2. Refusing to kill civilians when ordered to do so is concidered refusing an direct order and records state soldiers were shot for refusing to obey orders, only the Soviets killed more soldiers in the same category ... so thinking no soldiers was shot because of just that is a tad ignorant ...
being sent to the russian front was very very rare
and i say it again: all historians agree, that NOT A SINGLE GERMAN SOLDIER WAS SHOT FOR REFUSING TO KILL CIVILIANS; NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!! why do i know that? bec i'm studying history at university and i am specialized on the third reich
You need to learn to read between the lines if u wanna get anywhere with your degree matey
2. the best german historians (and public prosecuters) have dealt with this topic. they also can read between the lines. all the sources reagrding the topic have been taken into account and all the historians came to the conclusion, that not a single german soldier has been shot for refusing to shoot innocent civilians. some of them had to face (sometimes hard) punishment because of their refusal
here's what hannes heer says (i will translate later):
Kein einziger Verweigerer wurde erschossen
Systematisch haben sich die Staatanwälte der Ludwigsburger Zentralstelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen bereits in den 60er Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts mit diesem Problem befasst. Ihre Aufgabe war es, durch Vorermittlungen Prozesse gegen NS-Verbrecher auf den Weg zu bringen. Das Ergebnis war: Sämtliche juristischen und historiographischen Nachforschungen haben nicht einen einzigen Fall zutage fördern können, der belegen würde, dass ein Exekutionsverweigerer tatsächlich erschossen wurde.
Damit stellt sich die Frage einmal mehr: Konnten die Soldaten und Polizisten eigentlich nicht erkennen, welche Handlungsspielräume ihnen bei einer Portion Mut zur Verfügung standen? Oder waren sie durch die Furcht von schweren Strafen für eine Exekutionsverweigerung gleichsam zur Handlungsunfähigkeit verdammt und damit unfähig zu einer Verweigerung aus Gründen der Humanität?
In Auswitch, most of the officers who had to divide the people that came from the trains, got extremely drunk because it was so horrible.bad-man wrote:
for the 5th fucking time, i understand some germans were forced into becoming solders and they had to follow orders... this solders orders were to be a guard at the concentration camp... up to this point he was doing his work and obligation.... now... he chooses to kill, murder and rape on his own accord .... he should be punishedbennisboy wrote:
You dont understand the subject because you have no concept that a lot of these people were forced into doing what they did, knowing full well that if they didnt do what they were told they and they're family would be at risk.
Yes you can have the opinion he should be punsished, but that means every single nazi soldier still alive should be punished. Is that what you think? Cos clearly they all wanted to go to war and kill many millions of people, cos thats what Hitler thought, so every single german must have thought it!
/facepalm
They did not choose to do it, even as officers.