hi, i was wondering if the forum users thought that the soldiers in ww1 differed to those of ww2. if so were the ww2 soldiers bitter about their losses in ww1 or was it someththing more deep rooted than that? in ww1 one could say the germans were being patriotic when fighting and killing their enemies but in ww2 the killing was different and moved over to murder. anyway any thoughts would be gratefully received herman
The soldiers of the Great War went indeed cheerfully into war in 1914 because of patriotic fervour. Then they just kept fighting because of their mates. "All quiet in the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque and "Tempests of Iron" by Ernst Jünger portrait this very accurately. That these men endured inarrable suffering because of each other. The kaiser, the prussianism and their officers really didn't care much, nor did they hate the Tommies, the Ivans or the Poilus they were fighting. In WWII the German foot soldier went to war convinced he was superior, that what he was doing was right and it had to be done no matter the way. The average foot German soldier in the east did fight for his buddies and endured even worse things than in the trenches of the Great War, but didn't have the slightiest pity for Soviet POWs, partisans, communist officials, downed pilots and even less, Jews. The German soldier in WWI wouldn't have shot innocent unarmed civilians —in Poland, France or Russia— by the thousands, nor would have killed coldly enemy prisoners as was the rule in the eastern front or as the SS kids did with the Canadians at Caën. The German soldier of WWI killed, fought and threw gas and grenades to his enemy, but didn't hate him. The German soldier in WWII went to war full of hatred, arrogance and an air of superiority and invencibility, product of typical German Megalomania and of nazi despicable influence. Remember that the German soldier of WWII was a soldier from Nazi Germany, and he behaved accordingly.
I agree with Friedrich H on the matter. In WW1, the German Soldier were fighting for the Fatherland, patriotic indeed. German Soldiers in WW1 were fighting for their country, they were not out to murder civilians, but then again WW1 was the first major "Total War", when both sides target military, civilian personel and the morale of the country. In WW2 the German Soldier were fighting for the Country, for the Fatherland, it too had roots in patriotic duty but it also had to do with a little thing called propoganda/ the nazi party. They were told that they were ridding the world from evil and that the aryan way is the only way to go. Before WW2 the soon to be German Soldiers were being flooded with nazi propoganda, the hitler youth, the German Education reform and other things. Many soon to be Germany Soldiers were forced to join work groups, where they had a sense of brotherhood and a nice pay check. You could say that the WW2 German Soldiers were "brainwashed", they were set up to be loyal soldiers for Hitler. The Basic Line on the matter is that In most wars the man are German Soldiers, well trained and loyal to their causes, you can not call them murders or Nazis, because the members of the German Military could not be Nazi members. They followed orders or were shot. In both wars, German Soldiers were the best in the world. No one can judge a soldier, especialy a combat harden soldier. The Waffen-SS is a nother story they commited murder sometimes but then again you can not call them members of the German Military. The Waffen-SS were a political ARMED Army establised out of the SA to protect Hitler and to serve the Nazi Party, to the death. Those are my thought on the matter.
you can not call them murders or Nazis, because the members of the German Military could not be Nazi members. The German Military was completely nazified and they were soldiers from Nazi Germany. Not members of the party nor the SS maybe, but the German Army and Air Force were too up-to-the-neck in nazi filth. They followed orders or were shot. No, they didn't. At least not until after July 1944. I suggest you to read: "Not only Hitler" by Robert Gellately. Most detailed and amazing study of German —not nazi— crimes from 1933-1945. In both wars, German Soldiers were the best in the world. Maybe German military organisation in some matters. But the best foot soldiers? Don't think so.
Originally posted by Friedrich H@May 24 2004, 10:39 AM In both wars, German Soldiers were the best in the world. Maybe German military organisation in some matters. But the best foot soldiers? Don't think so. Who then in WW2?
Finnish, British, Americans... Almost in all the battles of the Western front, the Germans took more casualties than the Allies...
Originally posted by Friedrich H@May 24 2004, 07:17 PM Finnish, British, Americans... Almost in all the battles of the Western front, the Germans took more casualties than the Allies... British and Americans ?? Hmm. Dont think so. Between allied forces only Russians and Poles had equal morale as German soldats. Books that will tell something more, about polish forces, then poor Discovery programs. And maybe a few other thing, like : how the British soldiers saw their polish companions. 1. Matthew Parker "Monte Cassino" 2. Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud "A question of honor" But be reasonable. It is hard to tell 'Who was the best?' We can discuss about specific attributes of soldiers for example. And about 'Simple not-SS German Soldiers' You really had to be blind to believe and follow such... thing like Hitler. Germans considered WWI as a disgrace and a enormous defeat. They simple wanted to see Great Germany once more time. So please dont tale me storys about propaganda. People have brains dont they? And dont tell me about 'some' people that knew that this Nazi thing was bad. They were scared ? No! just 95 % of Germans didnt worried about it even if they knew what was going on. I dont want to accuse everybody around but... this is simply odd.
British and Americans ?? Hmm. Dont think so. Between allied forces only Russians and Poles had equal morale as German soldats. Equal morale to the Germans? Why? I don't get it. Polish soldiers at Cassino were indeed very brave and very good —not to mention, feared by the Germans. But generally speaking, a British or an American regular unit of 1944 had the best organisation, tactics, equipment, training, leadership, etc. And about 'Simple not-SS German Soldiers' You really had to be blind to believe and follow such... thing like Hitler. Germans considered WWI as a disgrace and a enormous defeat. They simple wanted to see Great Germany once more time. So please dont tale me storys about propaganda. People have brains dont they? And dont tell me about 'some' people that knew that this Nazi thing was bad. They were scared ? No! just 95 % of Germans didnt worried about it even if they knew what was going on. I dont want to accuse everybody around but... this is simply odd. And here, you are completely right. Germans from 1933 until 1945 not only didn't shut up and ignored what was happening to Jews, communists and many others, but they APPLAUDED IT, and it doesn't stop there, they CONTRIBUTED to it. Nazi crimes are GERMAN crimes.
You do have to give credit to the poles. There country was under Nazi control. Many times they were fighting eachother as alot of them were forced to join the Nazi forces but many of them also escaped and joined the allies. Take D-day for an example. Alot of the german soldiers were actually soldiers from different eastern european countries and probably favored the Allies. That's just my opinion
Yes those German Units were called OstBattalions and were soldiers that were forced to be in the German military, some of the first "German" POWs that were taken alive from D-Day were Korean. Watch Saving Private Ryan, when they already stormed the beaches and climbed up top, when those two "Germans" are comming forward to surrender to the Yanks, they were actually Poles and the Yanks couldnt understand them so they shot them.
Originally posted by Danmark@May 26 2004, 12:13 PM the Yanks couldnt understand them so they shot them. I think that in this scene they could understand fine, but shot them anyway. To me, the point of it was that in the heat of battle even the "good guys" don't always take prisoners.
Originally posted by angie999@May 28 2004, 07:09 PM I think that in this scene they could understand fine, but shot them anyway. To me, the point of it was that in the heat of battle even the "good guys" don't always take prisoners. I agree with you there. If i was stuck on a beach that was being shelled and fired on constantly and i was soaking wet, cold and scared i probably wouldn't take prisoners. I can imagine how some of the US soldiers in Afghanistan feel like when they take prisoners, i often think that some of the prisoners dont always make it back to get counted by HQ.
What were the soldiers expected to do? drag the prisoner along? he would be shot. If he used the soldier as a human shield intentionally or un intentionaly, he would still be going against the Geneva Convention.
