WWII in photos

[the-rasta-masta]

When I was travelling Europe, we met two Latvians who told us stories that their grandparents had told them about the war. They said that while the German army was occupying town, they would politely come and knock on the door asking for extra food/ places to stay. Where the Russians came in and were raping women, kicking families out of homes, and stealing food. He said that comparatively, the Russians were barbaric and the German's were much more bearable.

Not sure if it is true or not, but was an interesting conversation none the less.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

When I was travelling Europe, we met two Latvians who told us stories that their grandparents had told them about the war. They said that while the German army was occupying town, they would politely come and knock on the door asking for extra food/ places to stay. Where the Russians came in and were raping women, kicking families out of homes, and stealing food. He said that comparatively, the Russians were barbaric and the German's were much more bearable.

Not sure if it is true or not, but was an interesting conversation none the less.

I would take that with a grain of salt. The Latvians and Russians have a nasty history that goes on much longer than WWII. There is still a lot of ethnic conflict between Latvians and Russians.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by blankall

I would take that with a grain of salt. The Latvians and Russians have a nasty history that goes on much longer than WWII. There is still a lot of ethnic conflict between Latvians and Russians.

Why would that be taken with a grain of salt, then? Your reasoning generally supports this anecdote.

[Coys1882]

Considering Canada had a population of about 12,000,000 people in 1940 - that's a pretty god damn good contribution in my eyes.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Why would that be taken with a grain of salt, then? Your reasoning generally supports this anecdote.

Latvians alive today have little first hand experience with the brutality of the Germans. Latvians alive today have spent much of their lives under Soviet occupation followed by ethnic tensions with Russians.

We are referring here to specific anectodal stories about Russian behaviour in WWII vs Nazi behaviour. Present hatred towards Russians could easily be a reason to skew historical accounts.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Latvians alive today have little first hand experience with the brutality of the Germans. Latvians alive today have spent much of their lives under Soviet occupation followed by ethnic tensions with Russians.

We are referring here to specific anectodal stories about Russian behaviour in WWII vs Nazi behaviour. Present hatred towards Russians could easily be a reason to skew historical accounts.

Just adding that what you're saying isn't necessarily disagreeing with him, just that you believe the description of the Germans to be harsher in reality.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just adding that what you're saying isn't necessarily disagreeing with him, just that you believe the description of the Germans to be harsher in reality.

I'm more saying that I think the description of the Russians in WWII may have been exaggerated as a result of decades of represion and ethnic strife that followed WWII.

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Usury might have been a reason for anti-semitism in the middle-ages/rennaisance but by the 20th century it was ok for banks to charge interest. The holocaust was mostly because the Nazis brainwashed a whole nation that Jews were to blame for everything, from Germany's defeat in WWI to the depression and hyper inflation that followed.

Before Hitler Germany was actually quite tolerant towards Jews. It had the highest percentage of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage in Eastern/Central Europe. Which makes the the holocaust so baffling because there was almost no violence towards Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Czarist Russia was actually the worst offender for anti-semitism. Jews were only allowed to own land inside the Jewish Pale, which concentrated them in the Western part of the empire and insured that pogroms were common.

Truth be told, anti-semitism was rife throughout all of the industrialized nations during the "inter-war" period. Similar to the extant situation in todays US construction industry where everything is the "Mexicans" fault.

Paramount difference is that there were a small group of German Jewish who were MAJOR players in the "grey market" financial industries (think "Money Mart") that existed at the time. There were also a considerable number who held industrial/commercial holdings. Tooze gives a figure of ~RM 4B. This was to prove a major stumbling block as Germany's supply of foreign exchange "dried up" in the mid-30's. Germany couldn't afford to allow these people to emigrate...it would have created a "run" on the Reichsbank, and this would bring the whole "house of cards" (internal deficit financing) crashing down in a miserable heap.

Despite his well documented "pre-conceived" plans for the Jewish race, Hitler's endlossung was born of necessity, not dogma. The attendant peons (the vast number of Holocaust victims, BTW) can be considered as "collateral damage". That said, the intent was there and I'm no apologist for the homicidal policies of the Nazi regime.

The "Holocaust" photos reproduced here are well known to scholars. The perpetrators in the "death pit" images are Lithuanians. Most of the "liberation" era photos are actually typhus/dysentery victims. With the contraction of the eastern border and the abandonment of all of the industry in Silesia (powered by slave labor), the forced marches of these poor souls brought a torrent of disease and pestilence into a domestic camp system that had earlier (for the large part) been ANAL about sanitation. The whole system was falling apart by late 1944...key point is that the W Allies bombing campaign had brought the DRG (German railway) and the interior waterway (canal system) to it's knees. As a matter of point, western Allied POW's (who received the best treatment of all those under incarceration in Nazi Germany) were also going hungry in the spring of '45. And you know full well who would end up last on the list when it came to distribution of the limited number of calories available.

The "Final Solution" (German:Endölssung) was something unrelated to most of those photos (the "pit" ones qualify). This was a program completed at a system of "Vernichtungslager" set up in the "Generalgouvernment" and western Poland. Most of these served their purpose and were erradicated after doing so. There were six in Poland: Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Majdanek, Chelmno, AND LASTLY Auschwitz-Birkenau (the most "notorious") but a minor player when you consider the numbers "procesed" versus the "years" extant. Most were set up to liquidate the populations "concentrated" in the Eastern ghettoes. There was no "selection", "men to the right, women to the left"...none of that. If you got a ticket for a train or truck ride with any of the above as a destination, then that was it. There was also a facility run by Croats (Jassenovac) and another run by Ukranians/Belorussians (Maly Trostnets). Among those later implicated for complicity in this abomination? A large number of "Balts" (Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians) and also notably Ustase Croats and ethnic Germans from Bylorussia and the Ukraine. Germans from the ORPO (regular cops, homicide usually) also served.

Despite a previous posters claim about "fanatical indoctrinated Nazis", the evidence does not bear this out.

Administratively? Yes.

As to the "boots on the ground"? Opportunists mostly...it was a "paid position" after all.

They "subbed" this crap out. Noteworthy that they found no shortage of "sub-contractors"

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Considering Canada had a population of about 12,000,000 people in 1940 - that's a pretty god damn good contribution in my eyes.

Relatively speaking, we had a higher percentage of our population committed to war related "work" than did any of the other "western" nations. On a per capita basis, for actual "combatants" we also lead the list...and this was on a volunteer basis. Canada had an unprecidented percentage (for modern times) of it's population under arms by the end of WWII.

The Soviet Union had us beat (but they're not "western"); no one else did.

With respect to the Scheldt campaign (mentioned by another pos(t)er)?

To those boys who set out across the flooded polder with a BREN over thier shoulder (or the baseplate for a mortar, or with 500 rounds of LMG ammo), even though they'd seen their best high school buddy get his head blown off the day before doing the same thing, yet persisted...wading thigh deep through 500 meters of mud and water, just because someone had to stop this evil...think about it folks. Would YOU have those balls?
That's how we took the Scheldt...there was no cowering behind the hill waiting for an airstrike or artillery support.

"Get out there... and take that objective boys..."

For corraboration, see Desmond Morton/Jack Granatstein's work on this subject.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat

With respect to the Scheldt campaign (mentioned by another pos(t)er)?

To those boys who set out across the flooded polder with a BREN over thier shoulder (or the baseplate for a mortar, or with 500 rounds of LMG ammo), even though they'd seen their best high school buddy get his head blown off the day before doing the same thing, yet persisted...wading thigh deep through 500 meters of mud and water, just because someone had to stop this evil...think about it folks. Would YOU have those balls?
That's how we took the Scheldt...there was no cowering behind the hill waiting for an airstrike or artillery support.

"Get out there... and take that objective boys..."

For corraboration, see Desmond Morton/Jack Granatstein's work on this subject.

Canadians fought well when they did fight. There's no denying that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Usury might have been a reason for anti-semitism in the middle-ages/rennaisance but by the 20th century it was ok for banks to charge interest. The holocaust was mostly because the Nazis brainwashed a whole nation that Jews were to blame for everything, from Germany's defeat in WWI to the depression and hyper inflation that followed.

Before Hitler Germany was actually quite tolerant towards Jews. It had the highest percentage of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage in Eastern/Central Europe. Which makes the the holocaust so baffling because there was almost no violence towards Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Czarist Russia was actually the worst offender for anti-semitism. Jews were only allowed to own land inside the Jewish Pale, which concentrated them in the Western part of the empire and insured that pogroms were common.

I think Usury played a larger part then most people give it credit for. When you're one small nation fighting a war of this caliber, it would be beneficial to have a scapegoat whose assets you can seize that will also galvanize the nation behind you and provide you with a wealth of money and resources while alienating only a small percentage of the population.

In a way it makes sense if you leave the hatred out of it. But theres so much more there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Honestly with Hitler's global hatred of Jews, Gypsy's, homosexuals and inferior Eastern European races, you could argue that while the Jews were a significant focus they weren't the only focus.

They were a convienient enemy.

The Spanish Inquisition for example wasn't as much about the Catholic Church searching out heretics and burning them as it was that the head of the inquisition (who's name escapes me) was on board with Spanish Royalty that the Jews held too much power in the nation and too much wealth that could be used to enrich other more proper catholics.

But you could almost say that if it wasn't the Jews Hitler would have found another race to galvanize a frustrated and angry and bitter nation to lash out against.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by blankall

Latvians alive today have little first hand experience with the brutality of the Germans. Latvians alive today have spent much of their lives under Soviet occupation followed by ethnic tensions with Russians.

We are referring here to specific anectodal stories about Russian behaviour in WWII vs Nazi behaviour. Present hatred towards Russians could easily be a reason to skew historical accounts.

What you say is true but they didn't have much love for the Russians back then either. Its pretty much known that the Russians could be just a brutal as the Germans and not all Germans were fanatical nazis committing attrocities. A lot of countries/area's (a lot of the Ukraine for example) in the east actually thought of the Germans as liberators instead of Conquerers, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear stories that that either.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hitler made such a huge mistake at the start of the invasion of Russia. He had massive amounts of "Liberated Russians" that hated Stalin and would have thrown in with the Gernan's to overthrow the party.

But Hitler's insistance on the brutalization of those Russian's literally turned the tide on the Gernan's as it allowed for Stalin to implement the scorched earth campaign.

[VladtheImpaler]

The Germans would have treated the Latvians OK, as they considered the Latvians and the Estonians (I believe) to be Germanic peoples (descendants of Teutonic Knights, or some such crap), worthy of incorporation into the Reich as full-fledged "Germans". The Russians treated the Balts just fine during Russian Empire days, and many Balts/Baltic Germans held very high positions in the Russian bureaucracy/military. Given that Nicky and Willy were cousins, there was much love between the Russians and the Germans in general.
When the Soviets got the Baltics back in 1940, the area was subjected to NKVD cleansing of undesirables ("bourgeoise", clergy, politicians, teachers, and similar riff-raff), so there is no reason for those people to love the Soviets. I'm sure the Germans treated them better. Frankly, many people who'd been subjected to Stalin's "love" (such as Ukrainian peasants) initially welcomed the Germans, until they realized their role in the Reich was "slave labour"...

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hitler made such a huge mistake at the start of the invasion of Russia. He had massive amounts of "Liberated Russians" that hated Stalin and would have thrown in with the Gernan's to overthrow the party.

But Hitler's insistance on the brutalization of those Russian's literally turned the tide on the Gernan's as it allowed for Stalin to implement the scorched earth campaign.

Hey Cap'n...gonna have to disagree (to a "degree') with this. The Wehrmacht "assimilated" tens of thousands of "Hiwis" into servile jobs (ammo schlepers, litter bearers, logistical labor, vehicle maintenance), freeing up Germans for combat duties. It's an oft repeated myth that they could have waved a magic wand and turned these (compliant, but tactically inept) volunteers into valuable infantry assets. Despite the common perception...there's a lot to know before you can function as a coherent infantry unit. The Heer was already "maxed out" as to supplying the manpower they had on the line. The Hiwis allowed them to "re-muster" a pile of experienced men as infantry...this provided a (nominal) surge over and above the (draft) "class" of '24 who provided the infantry replacements for "Fall Blau" in 1942. Read Evan Mawdsley: "Thunder in the East", David Glantz/ Jonathan House: "When Titans Clashed" or John Erickson "The Road to Stalingrad".

The scale of the conflict on the "Ostfront" is mind boggling. Imagine a "front" that starts at Coutts and ends at High Level...that's what we're talking about here. Call Calgary Kiev, Edmonton is Moscow and High Level becomes a major sea port like Vancouver (Leningrad). Murmansk and Archangel are up on the Arctic circle, where the NWT meets the Ocean.
Stick a big impenetrable swamp in the middle, stretching from about Sundre to Sylvan Lake.
Now conquer this...with 1940 tech.

As to the "scorched earth" thing? That was happening regardless; there was SFA that the Germans could do to prevent it. Army Group South was far too weak to take all their objectives "on the fly" and that's the only way that they're going to ever interdict the Soviets relocation efforts. The bulk of the Red Army were occupying blocking positions that shielded the Donbas region when Barbarossa kicked off...this was by design. When the Germans detached Guderian's 2nd Pz. Grp. from AGC to pocket 650K around Kiev, the withdrawl of industry was already 90% complete. They destroyed the military threat on the right flank but they conquered a hollow space...rich in resources, but devoid of the infrastructure needeed to extract them.

There was NO plunder of plant and resources in the wake of Barbarossa and this must have only served to re-enforce the hollow feeling of ultimate failure when Hitler took stock in December. They blew their "wad" and got little to nothing in return. The rest of the world was far more pessimistic about the Soviets situation than were the principals involved.
I would love to be inside Hitler's mind when he realized that he'd "shot his bolt" (right around the middle of August, when AGC had to halt for a "logistic pause" at Smolensk) and the "rotten house of cards" had failed to collapse.

"Oh sh*t..."

I'd prepared a huge post regarding the origins of "Hitler's War"; a "Cole's Notes" version of Adam Tooze's thesis (*the "interwebz" ate it).

Without understanding the Economics behind WWII..you will never understand the operational aspects. Most people focus on all the "sexy" finished weapons (see all the unmitigated "Panzer Love" on this thread), but without understanding how each of the combatants was financing their effort, an accurate appraisal of any "what if" is an exercise in speculation (at best).

It's been said that "amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"...

It goes without saying, that "logistics" start at the national exchequer; the guy who's figuring out how to make sure that the factories building all those "sexy weapons" have money to meet their payroll, and to "source" the raw materiels to stay in business.

WWII was war on a truly "industrial" scale...the likes of which will never be seen again. Nuclear weapons have obviated huge standing parks of aircraft, tanks and combat ready soldiers.

As such...it's an anachronism.

But the lessons are still relevant

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat

Hey Cap'n...gonna have to disagree (to a "degree') with this. The Wehrmacht "assimilated" tens of thousands of "Hiwis" into servile jobs (ammo schlepers, litter bearers, logistical labor, vehicle maintenance), freeing up Germans for combat duties. It's an oft repeated myth that they could have waved a magic wand and turned these (compliant, but tactically inept) volunteers into valuable infantry assets. Despite the common perception...there's a lot to know before you can function as a coherent infantry unit. The Heer was already "maxed out" as to supplying the manpower they had on the line. The Hiwis allowed them to "re-muster" a pile of experienced men as infantry...this provided a (nominal) surge over and above the (draft) "class" of '24 who provided the infantry replacements for "Fall Blau" in 1942. Read Evan Mawdsley: "Thunder in the East", David Glantz/ Jonathan House: "When Titans Clashed" or John Erickson "The Road to Stalingrad".

The scale of the conflict on the "Ostfront" is mind boggling. Imagine a "front" that starts at Coutts and ends at High Level...that's what we're talking about here. Call Calgary Kiev, Edmonton is Moscow and High Level becomes a major sea port like Vancouver (Leningrad). Murmansk and Archangel are up on the Arctic circle, where the NWT meets the Ocean.
Stick a big impenetrable swamp in the middle, stretching from about Sundre to Sylvan Lake.
Now conquer this...with 1940 tech.

As to the "scorched earth" thing? That was happening regardless; there was SFA that the Germans could do to prevent it. Army Group South was far too weak to take all their objectives "on the fly" and that's the only way that they're going to ever interdict the Soviets relocation efforts. The bulk of the Red Army were occupying blocking positions that shielded the Donbas region when Barbarossa kicked off...this was by design. When the Germans detached Guderian's 2nd Pz. Grp. from AGC to pocket 650K around Kiev, the withdrawl of industry was already 90% complete. They destroyed the military threat on the right flank but they conquered a hollow space...rich in resources, but devoid of the infrastructure needeed to extract them.

There was NO plunder of plant and resources in the wake of Barbarossa and this must have only served to re-enforce the hollow feeling of ultimate failure when Hitler took stock in December. They blew their "wad" and got little to nothing in return. The rest of the world was far more pessimistic about the Soviets situation than were the principals involved.
I would love to be inside Hitler's mind when he realized that he'd "shot his bolt" (right around the middle of August, when AGC had to halt for a "logistic pause" at Smolensk) and the "rotten house of cards" had failed to collapse.

"Oh sh*t..."

I'd prepared a huge post regarding the origins of "Hitler's War"; a "Cole's Notes" version of Adam Tooze's thesis (*the "interwebz" ate it).

Without understanding the Economics behind WWII..you will never understand the operational aspects. Most people focus on all the "sexy" finished weapons (see all the unmitigated "Panzer Love" on this thread), but without understanding how each of the combatants was financing their effort, an accurate appraisal of any "what if" is an exercise in speculation (at best).

It's been said that "amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"...

It goes without saying, that "logistics" start at the national exchequer; the guy who's figuring out how to make sure that the factories building all those "sexy weapons" have money to meet their payroll, and to "source" the raw materiels to stay in business.

WWII was war on a truly "industrial" scale...the likes of which will never be seen again. Nuclear weapons have obviated huge standing parks of aircraft, tanks and combat ready soldiers.

As such...it's an anachronism.

But the lessons are still relevant

I really can't disagree with what your saying, except that the German mistreatment of the Russian villagers made it easy for Stalin to convince the rest of the citizens in the path of the German's to burn their houses and their farms.

If the German's had overall been decent to the Russians and allowed that word to spread then the scorched earth strategy wouldn't have taken root and the German's would have been able to not only safely extend their logistical train, but they could have lived off of the land if need be.

I absolutely agree with your definitions of the logistical difficulties, but the German's originally had a cheap disposable labor force especially on the munitions end.

The Russian's did an amazing job of ramping up production in a hurry, but I would say that the Russians did have an advantage that Stalin at the time was able to inspire a lot of loyalty in Russia pure where a lot of the industries and factories were located and relocated to. I watched a video on T34 production and it was outright awesome to see how fast they were punching these tanks out, and basically driving them straight out to the battlefield with full ammo loads and fuel and crews.

I go back to not only the stupidity of Hitler's strategy of trying to conquor on three fronts at the same time, but when things started falling apart his habit of defining areas outside of Germany as fortresses to be defended to the last man, Hitler threw away his mobility and his ability to win battles through the maneuverability.

It must have driven Hitler's general's mad that they couldn't preserve their armies and bring them back to Germany to defend the fatherland once it was clear that the war in Russia was lost.

As it was, once Stalin seized the Oilfields in Romania which oddly was not defined as a fortress, the war was lost for the Germans.

I still get blown away when I was watching a documentary and they were talking about battles between a million soviets and 1500 tanks and 800,000 men and 800 tanks on the other side, and this was one battle of many that were happening.

[Calgaryborn]

Thanks for these great history lessons. I'm learning alot.

Does anybody know how to find out specific information on how a particular soldier died? I have an Uncle who died in Italy but, only know the date it happened.

[Coys1882]

You guys should all check out the podcasts by Dan Carlin about the war on the Eastern Front. I forget what they are called... Ghosts of Ostfront or something. It's 4 or 5 parts and is exceptional.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thanks for these great history lessons. I'm learning alot.

Does anybody know how to find out specific information on how a particular soldier died? I have an Uncle who died in Italy but, only know the date it happened.

Was he a Canadian soldier? If so, you can get his military records. There is info on how to do this at the link below:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/d...d/index-e.html