Hitler Soldiers

by Alfred Kotz

18 September 2004

Much has already been written about National Socialism. There are people who examine every line of text for "ifs and buts." There are others for whom everything is completely clear. They do not need to read anything. When looking at National Socialism it does not come down to agreeing with the written presentation of a problem. National Socialism is not a problem. Many people who read Hitler's Mein Kampf have suddenly found that they had always been National Socialists. Indeed, the essence of National Socialism must already be inside us before it can fulfill itself outwardly. The German might have been subjected to many influences from environment and situation, many things that cloud the view and make it narrow. If one peels all that away, a National Socialist suddenly appears. How many of those people who for their whole lives thought they were died-in-the-wool Marxists had to see that they had taken the wrong path? One day they realized that they were not Marxists at all, rather National Socialists. Conversely, a person who at the bottom of his soul is a scoundrel can wear ever so many swastikas; he will never become a National Socialist. It follows that one can be a National Socialist without knowing it. And furthermore, that down deep and in terms of world-view, one must already be a National Socialist, that one cannot become a National Socialist. In this train of thought, "National Socialist" naturally does not mean the concept "party member." The person who in terms of world-view must be viewed as a National Socialist can under circumstances still stand around outside the party.

The characteristics that make a National Socialist must basically have been planted by God in your breast at birth.

A person can, however, become a Hitler soldier. This man must be a National Socialist -- not just from the standpoint of party membership.

From Hitler soldiers the very most is expected for Germany: unconditional devotion to the great, sacred idea of National Socialism and the unconditional, total effort of the man. This best corresponds to German essence. For this reason the Hitler army has grown into millions. This is why the old fighters of the movment can safely remain assured, because these demands cannot be long met by the unworthy who creep into our ranks. They might be able to hide behind hypocrisy for a while; they might even try to erect a platform for their loudly proclaimed importance and for an emphasized necessity to hold an influential office. If the firm, secure foundation of National Socialist bonds is lacking -- cleanliness, honesty, courage, manliness and selflessness -- then they one day sink into their own hollowness and insignificance. They are not Hitler soldiers and will never become ones.

This is, in short, the foundation for the development of the spiritual life in the formations. We don't really need to talk about physical training. You know that yourselves, and others also know what demands are placed on Hitler's soldiers. German blood drives to performance. German manliness finds joy in success against exertions and dangers. Even the suffocating bad air of the deceased system of softness was unable to kill off the drive of German blood. How else would it have been able to rejuvenate itself again so quickly, especially among the German youth? After all, it wasn't totally crippled even by the pacfiistic Reichsbanner. We saw many SPD-bourgeoisie, who thoroughly cursed "militarism," stomping along in four-man-wide columns.

Although the purpose of our drill already distinguishes us from such "soldiers," the purpose of nurturing physical strength at all, drill and exercise of the body alone are not decisive for us. Decisive is the spirit which fills us and which we will know how to preserve.

Through this spirit it is possible to achieve the highest: well-trained, steeled personalities. Therefore, we gladly subordinate ourselves to the hard training for truth, for steadfastness and for loyalty.

Our kind hence remains the kind of the soldier.

Our essence: manly virtues.

Our love, our obedience for all time belongs to our Führer.

Our goal always remains Germany.

The highest increase of our life content comes as a natural consequence of this. Not like the Roman gladiators who marched from their small world into senseless fight in the arena with the shout: "Hail, Caesar, we who are about to die salute you!" We seek instead to be worthy to step in front of the German nation when the Führer commands, to raise our arm and call out: "Those who are ready to die for the fatherland greet you, Adolf Hitler!"

ALFRED KOTZ

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/SSKotzHitlerSoldiers.htm

Our goal always remains Germany.

YES! The only goal worth living and dieng for!

YES! The only goal worth living and dieng for!
From your perspective :p

From your perspective :p
Of course, an NS perspective-- nobody cares about your lemming perspective

The Fuhrer managed to fool some of the people for most of the time , and some of the people all of the time , those he could not fool any of the time he had them locked up or killed.
Is this an NS perspective ?

The German soldier deserved much better than Adolf Hitler.

The Fuhrer managed to fool some of the people for most of the time , and some of the people all of the time , those he could not fool any of the time he had them locked up or killed.
Is this an NS perspective ?

The German soldier deserved much better than Adolf Hitler.

LOL Again, you've got no idea what you're talking about. Unless you were a jew or communist life was immeasurably superior under National Socialism. The German people overwhelmingly supported Adolf Hitler even towards the very end of WW II, if what you say were true that certainly would not have been the case.

(Cerb, save your breath you're like a broken record spinning the same disinformation again and again...)

If you think that the average german would have wanted to stand by Hitler side and die for him certain of Victory I think you are very much mistaken.
It was a case of being on to the end of the ride with no way out .
Speaking of the german people Speer had guts enough to say that effort should be put into feeding the peole anad giving them bread rather than destroying what was left of the country , Hitler thought otherwise and rebuked him.
A man who thought of the people?
Why did he waste the last reserves chasing a victory which could never be achieved in December 44 and again in March '45 when he left Berlin undefended.
Decent soldiers like Guderian argued in vain against these acts of folly and got no where.
He was profligate with the lives of others and with those of the german people who he in th end said had not been worthy of him.
Worthy of him ? Makes me sick, it really does.
And you FB would look down on me with distain for questioning the wisdom of the Fuhrer , your reality is that of the deluded.
Why do you think Steiner did not go to the relief of Berlin as Hitler Demanded ?
As far as the average german soldier went he deserved much better than Adolf Hitler , Hitler had no respect for the Soldiers who died for him , none at all.
Look at the dejected , sick , utterly neglected and starved men of 6th Army as they trudged away to the east , how many of them returned home ?
What did Hitler have to say about them other than that "the 6th Army will do its historic duty and their sacrafice will strengthen the German people"
That is what it sounds like . ( Indifference).
Give me your opinion on the order to strip the cuff title from the men of the Leibstandarte , and what do you think of Sepp Dietrich's reply ?
Do you think that they failed to fight hard enough at Stalingrad , do you think the 6th Army lacked " National Socialist Zeal" , that too is exactly what it sounds like (BS !).
Do you think that the last reserves sent to attack in March 45 failed beacuse "they lacked the will to fight hard enough" ?
The man had no gratitude , respect or compassion for his men.
front line Commanders like Hausser , Dietrich , Rommel and Meyer thought more of their men.
I am sorry I cannot reconcile your party retoric with the reality as experienced by the german soldier at the hands of Adolf Hitler , its a gulf I cannot cross.
Perhaps I lack " National Socialist Zeal" , or is it that I take a good deal more realistic view of the suffering of the German landser than you are prepared to do.
BTW Not a Jew and not a Communist but one who knows and understands a little more about what the German soldier went through , more than you ever can.

Of course, an NS perspective-- nobody cares about your lemming perspective

So would you betray Chile if it meant helping Germany?

If you think that the average german would have wanted to stand by Hitler side and die for him certain of Victory I think you are very much mistaken.
It was a case of being on to the end of the ride with no way out .
Speaking of the german people Speer had guts enough to say that effort should be put into feeding the peole anad giving them bread rather than destroying what was left of the country , Hitler thought otherwise and rebuked him.
A man who thought of the people?
Why did he waste the last reserves chasing a victory which could never be achieved in December 44 and again in March '45 when he left Berlin undefended.
Decent soldiers like Guderian argued in vain against these acts of folly and got no where.
He was profligate with the lives of others and with those of the german people who he in th end said had not been worthy of him.
Worthy of him ? Makes me sick, it really does.
And you FB would look down on me with distain for questioning the wisdom of the Fuhrer , your reality is that of the deluded.
Why do you think Steiner did not go to the relief of Berlin as Hitler Demanded ?
As far as the average german soldier went he deserved much better than Adolf Hitler , Hitler had no respect for the Soldiers who died for him , none at all.
Look at the dejected , sick , utterly neglected and starved men of 6th Army as they trudged away to the east , how many of them returned home ?
What did Hitler have to say about them other than that "the 6th Army will do its historic duty and their sacrafice will strengthen the German people"
That is what it sounds like . ( Indifference).
Give me your opinion on the order to strip the cuff title from the men of the Leibstandarte , and what do you think of Sepp Dietrich's reply ?
Do you think that they failed to fight hard enough at Stalingrad , do you think the 6th Army lacked " National Socialist Zeal" , that too is exactly what it sounds like (BS !).
Do you think that the last reserves sent to attack in March 45 failed beacuse "they lacked the will to fight hard enough" ?
The man had no gratitude , respect or compassion for his men.
front line Commanders like Hausser , Dietrich , Rommel and Meyer thought more of their men.
I am sorry I cannot reconcile your party retoric with the reality as experienced by the german soldier at the hands of Adolf Hitler , its a gulf I cannot cross.
Perhaps I lack " National Socialist Zeal" , or is it that I take a good deal more realistic view of the suffering of the German landser than you are prepared to do.
BTW Not a Jew and not a Communist but one who knows and understands a little more about what the German soldier went through , more than you ever can.

Cerb, Adolf Hitler was not the problem. The people who made the war and refused six offers by Hitler of an honorable peace (with Germany back inside German borders) at the time when Germany was winning, and later refused any surrender but an unconditional surrender were to blame.

As for your disagreements with Hitler's tactics, all I can say is that sooner or later the Germans would have been beaten regardless; they were totally outmanned and out-equipped--what was remarkable was how long they held out. And their surrendering honorably was not a choice Hitler could make, or anyone else except the Allies, who refused. When the Allies got their victory the results of an "unconditional surrender" were seen in their utter refusal to accord Germans any dignity or human rights, or even the basic means for survival.

Even after Hitler's death, when Donau, his successor, tried to make a separate peace so they could keep fighting the Soviets, he was refused, with the result that 2 million women were raped, with no one to protect them.

He was profligate with the lives of others and with those of the german people Cerberus, after you have been alerted to the fact that the war was started, not by Hitler, but by the other side, with the intent of crushing Germany, you really ought to check that out before you go on raging about Hitler spilling the blood of his people. I don't question your knowledge of the experiences of a soldier--what I question is your understanding of what the causes were.

Bread, for example--there was an embargo by the Allies preventing them from getting food and supplies. Nevertheless, the Germans had managed to put away enough food stores that a year and a half's worth were left when the Allies took over. They confiscated that and proceeded to starve the German people to death.

The war was a genocidal war against the German people. See Harry Elmer Barnes' Revisionist Pamphlets: he has some direct quotes of Churchill in there about wanting to kill all the Germans (not just German soldiers) he could. And I'm sure you're aware of Ilya Ehrenberg's admonishment to the soldiers to kill Germans and rape German women. Are you aware that many more Germans died in the the "peace" that followed the Allied victory than during the entire war? That's a pretty good reason, it seems to me, for them to have gone on fighting as long as possible.

You should read the Bacque books--Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies Contrary to what people on this forum who have not read them say, they appear to be as accurate as they could be with the information available. What does it say for the apologists' claims that the losses are overstated, the fact that key records of the Allies were destroyed? I bet there were plenty of "disarmed enemy combatants" in Eisenhower's death camps who wished they had a relatively quick death in battle.

About Hitler's attitude, he was getting more and more ill with Parkinson's disease as the war progressed. It certainly would have affected him mentally.

If you're as angry as you sound about the experience of the soldiers it's a big waste to focus that anger on someone who a. has been dead for almost 60 years, and b. was not the one who started or wanted the war, who is on record as having tried numerous times to make peace, and whose choice to fight till the end was based on the certainty that the "unconditional surrender" would bring incredible suffering.

Conversely, the advantages of focussing your anger on the real mass-murderers are manifold. First of all, you could use the energy from your anger to get the word out about what really happened. The people (plenty of Germans among them) who suggest that there's no point in dragging it all out again perhaps haven't thought about the serious consequences of allowing a serial killer to go free because you've convicted the wrong man.

So many people have been killed and tortured and oppressed in the years since WWII, because the victorious aggressors, with their crimes hidden, have been permitted to rampage around unchecked, while the dead Hitler is kept around as the epitomy of villainy, and his name used to brand the leader of the next country the US is planning to take down.

Now that there's an internet with which to disseminate "forbidden" information more widely than ever before, isn't it time to expose those crimes?
If the information were to become known to enough people, things could start to change...

As I mentioned to Fade, The Forced War is the most comprehensive book on how WWII started.

Barnes' Revisionist pamphlets has a lot in it about the leadup to WWII, in a much less voluminous form. He also has an interesting comparison (this was early 60s I think) of the reception of revisionist history after WWI and II, especially in Germany. After WWI the people of Germany were eager to hear the evidence which absolved their country of the guilt for WWI. In contrast, when he tried to spread the good news that Germany was not responsible for starting WWII he met widespread resistance, and even anger--I guess the Allies' harsh schooling succeeded.

So would you betray Chile if it meant helping Germany?
Not for this Germany....
Now, in the unlikely case that an NS Germany rose again, and that Chile became to much of a threat for us (:P)... I think that I'd be with Germany...
Now, as I live in Chile, if ANY country declares war against this place, I'd go and fight for Chile, anytime. It's my civic duty.

Not for this Germany....
Now, in the unlikely case that an NS Germany rose again, and that Chile became to much of a threat for us (:P)... I think that I'd be with Germany...
Now, as I live in Chile, if ANY country declares war against this place, I'd go and fight for Chile, anytime. It's my civic duty.


So in such an example, where the interests of a National Socialist Germany conflict with Chile's, would the Chileans be right in considering you a traitor?

If (God willing :p) tomorrow the US of A would become a NS Nation, would you be a traitor if you would raise against its plans for Las Vegas? :p

If (God willing :p) tomorrow the US of A would become a NS Nation, would you be a traitor if you would raise against its plans for Las Vegas? :p

You misunderstand. We're not talking about a Nazi takeover of Chile. We're talking about a theoretical conflict of interests between Chile and a new NS Germany he spoke of.

He said he would fight for Germany, in such a case. Now, does that not make him a traitor?

Your question doesn't apply.

Oh yes it does, Odin has said his loyalty is not to Germany propper but to a certain political outlook, he even said he loathes actual Germany. So, given that his loyalty is commanded by his poltical beliefs my question still stands.

Or maybe you should ask if Odin would take up arms to defend Chile against an Invasion force by Schröder :p

Oh yes it does, Odin has said his loyalty is not to Germany propper but to a certain political outlook, he even said he loathes actual Germany. So, given that his loyalty is commanded by his poltical beliefs my question still stands.


As I said, the question presupposes a new National Socialist Germany.

Would you betray your nation for a National Socialist Germany?

Big time, being that "my nation" would be an "enemy" of said NS Germany.

Now...lets asume the US becomes NS tomorow and the very Democratic European Union, or, say Mexico, decides it must free the US from such a scoruge and declares war. Would you enlist to defend your nation? Would you aid the invasor?

Does sabotaging the European effort from inside the EU count? ;)

Big time, being that "my nation" would be an "enemy" of said NS Germany.


Then it is legitimate for your nation to consider you a traitor, correct? Now, what do National Socialists suggest should be done to traitors?


Now...lets asume the US becomes NS tomorow and the very Democratic European Union, or, say Mexico, decides it must free the US from such a scoruge and declares war. Would you enlist to defend your nation?


If the National Socialists were ELECTED to power and did not attempt to prevent further elections or dispose of the Constitution, I would defend my nation while denouncing its leadership.


Would you aid the invasor?

No.

Mugwort,
Angry at the tripe posted by FB in view of the fuhrer's attitude to his soldiers.
Hitler was almost certainly a psychopath , of that you can be 99% sure.

As far as Hitler being ill with parkinsons disease and his judgement being affected. The logical step is to stand down , the Goverment in the face of even a sick dictator is powerless to act.

Six peace offers i would be gartful if you might post or pm details of them to me , not a micky take I would be interested to see details of them in relation to the state of the war.
I know of three , the 1940 offer , Stalin wanting to end the conflict with Germany in 1941 ( Hitler refused it ) , 1943 Moltov met Riddentrop in occupied Russia , Hiller refused in again ( pre-Kursk).
As far as starting a war went , Fade is on record as supporting the view that Britain went out of its way to avoid war in 1939.
Hitlers gamble on Poland failed completely , he boobed big time , he got a war he did not want against an enemy he did not want.
his reply " I'll brew them a devils potion" Adolf Hitler (September 1939).
I find the revisionist school of thoguht amzing in its consistant eforts to balme everyone except Hitler for the war and for what happened germany post war.
Strange how Speer rowed with Hitler in March/ April 45 that efforts should be madde to feed the people rather than destroy what little remained of Germany.
If there was an effort to starve a nation to death it was a very bad one.
By the time Donitz had taken over the war was over , fight on , with what and to what end , more death and widows.
Mass rape , no problem saying the Russians behaved like animals I agree completely with you.
Don't delude yourself that the German treatment of the Russian population was any better.
For a power who had a year and a half of bread stored etc , they did little to feed the dutch who they still occupied.

Hitler not guilty of starting WW2 , a joke .
Hitlers regard for the German soldier.
1941- indifference to the state of the Army outside Moscow , his only answer to guderian was do what we did in the trenches in 14-18.
He cancelled the winter unifroms on the ground of econemy , they would not be needed.
1942. Stalingrad speaks for itself.
He said what was needed for vistory was " National Socialist Zeal" .
It was totally his fault that the situation arose in the first place.
Strange chain of command.
Hitler took command of the army group himself , he was responsible to himself as Commander in Chief Heer and to himself again as Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht and to himself again as Fuhrer and leader of the State.
Odd don't you think ?
He wrote 6th Army off with a piece of bullshit to the effect that " the sixth Army will do its heroic and historic duty".
He cared not and Remers view of him as a simple soldier stateman is at odds with his attitude to his soldiers.
1943 he wanted rommel to fight to the last shell at Alamein. Standard fare when the fuhrers orders are considered.
1943 he refused to withdraw them to Italy , some might have been saved.
1943 He almost scuppered Mansteins defence of and recovery from the Soviet winter offensive which if Hitler had had his way would have resulted in the complete and utter collapse of Army group South with the loss of everything east of the Don.
Had Hausser fought to the last shell at Kharkov defeat would have been absolute and 1st SS PAnzer Korp would have been lost for what , nothing .
1943 Kursk a total waste time and opportunity was lost and then clung to against reasonable advice. Everything Guderoan had put together and shaped was lost.
1944 Army group centre destroyed , again he was waned and did nothing apart from refuse to listen. Stalingrad was small in comparison.
Afrika , Stalingrad , Kursk, Army Group Centre. good track record of caring for his soldiers.
It gets better.
Normandy , I'm having a kip , don't wake me. The chain of command , Hitlers doing.
After the initial success of the landings no one wanted to stay in Normandy it could not be held a meat grinder which destroyed the armoured reserves and the few seasoned troops left.
" Make peace you fools" was good advice.
The Mortain offensive , a waste of good soldiers again against advice.
The falaise pocket should never have been , he was warned again .

1944 What on the Rhine , speaks for itself a waste of all that should have been defending Berlin , France 44 offensive in Alcase , another waste of men .
1945 Offensives again hopeless waste , defend Berlin , no.
get people out of the city , No.
Concern no , consideration no.
Mugwort says his judgement was afected by parkinsons disease.
Some excuse.
I honestly feel for the German soldier he deserved so much better , and they could have won if the army . professional soldiers had been allowed to lead and direct.
Hitler he played with flags on a map and saw only his grand ego , his genius , his role as a man of destiny , he saw not the suffering of the civilinan or the soldier and he cared not , like the fat cats around him.
Goring , Keitel , etc. Makes you sick.

Then it is legitimate for your nation to consider you a traitor, correct? Now, what do National Socialists suggest should be done to traitors?

What my nation´s fiendish goverment considers myself does not really concern me. The greatest good would be to introduce my nation to the goodness of NS and pan european racial cooperation.
If my fiendish national goverment would set execution through piano wire as a fitting punishment for my action then so be it. I would gladly take such a risk for our goals. This is no new thing either as tens of thousands of so called "collaborators" suffered after WW2 by the hands of the liberators or other so called resistance movements. Therefore I see no moral highground in these so called Democracies in regards to their "misguided" sons.

If the National Socialists were ELECTED to power and did not attempt to prevent further elections or dispose of the Constitution, I would defend my nation while denouncing its leadership.

I have very much doubts about your sincerity in this aspect. Any "good excuse" would fit for you to fight them. Of course even if the majority of your nation would vote for a party that would have in its goals to change the Consitution and the needed majority to do so, you would still say the above?

No.

Yeah right

What my nation´s fiendish goverment considers myself does not really concern me. The greatest good would be to introduce my nation to the goodness of NS and pan european racial cooperation.


If there's anything this forum shows, its that "National Socialism" revolves around Germany. Its Germany's interests which hold primacy, not Spain's or Hungary's or Italy's.

Nations with the same political bent can still have differing interests. It was not in Hungary's interest in WWII, for example, to become a battleground to fight the Soviet army on. It was in Germany's interests, however.

And when those interests conflicted, it resulted in the overthrow of Hungary's government by its German "allies".


If my fiendish national goverment would set execution through piano wire as a fitting punishment for my action then so be it.


But do you agree that as one who would commit treason, you deserve that punishment?

Could you find any fault with your government executing you in such a situation?


I would gladly take such a risk for our goals. This is no new thing either as tens of thousands of so called "collaborators" suffered after WW2 by the hands of the liberators or other so called resistance movements.


They were collaborators and traitors. Its a fact.


Therefore I see no moral highground in these so called Democracies in regards to their "misguided" sons.


Since these were often spontaneous acts by liberated populations taking out their spite against the Germans and their lackies, I don't see how it reflects on the government. Charles de Gaulle wasn't shaving women's heads. And thats pretty benign compared to what the Germans were doing to people who wouldn't fight, let alone those who helped the Allies.


I have very much doubts about your sincerity in this aspect.


It is your perogative to be in error.


Any "good excuse" would fit for you to fight them.


A good reason. The destruction of the legal organ for removing them would leave me no other recourse. As long as that option is available, it would be beneath me to resort to violence.


Of course even if the majority of your nation would vote for a party that would have in its goals to change the Consitution and the needed majority to do so, you would still say the above?


Yes. But I would not fight for the nation, in that instance. I would speak against them until I was imprisoned or executed.



Yeah right

I'm a patriot. I love this nation, not some foreign despot or ideology.

- "I'm a patriot. I love this nation, not some foreign despot or ideology."


Modern nationalism was basically an artificial invention of the French Revolution.

It is more natural for people to connect through tribal and/or sectarian identity.


Petr

- "I'm a patriot. I love this nation, not some foreign despot or ideology."


Modern nationalism was basically an artificial invention of the French Revolution.


Thats an interesting view. I don't see its relevance, however.



It is more natural for people to connect through tribal and/or sectarian identity.


It is more natural for people to shit on the floor and drag women away to mount in a cave.

I prefer modern niceties for a variety of reasons.

- "It is more natural for people to shit on the floor and drag women away to mount in a cave."


Childish non sequitur.


Petr

- "It is more natural for people to shit on the floor and drag women away to mount in a cave."


Childish non sequitur.


Petr

Since its actually true, and the point is valid, hardly.

The point is that what is 'natural' is not always desirable. Natural is often synonomous with primitive.

If there's anything this forum shows, its that "National Socialism" revolves around Germany. Its Germany's interests which hold primacy, not Spain's or Hungary's or Italy's.

Times have certainly changed and what was yesterdays ideas can and might have evolved into something more encompassing as you have certainly seen in your time here.

Nations with the same political bent can still have differing interests. It was not in Hungary's interest in WWII, for example, to become a battleground to fight the Soviet army on. It was in Germany's interests, however.

Of course so it was back then, evethough Germany had no problems fighting on on its own metropolitan area. And it was hardly in Germany´s "interest" for Hungary to become a battleground much like it wasn´t Germay to become one. When you loose wars it tends to become a reality that you might loose ground.

And when those interests conflicted, it resulted in the overthrow of Hungary's government by its German "allies".

Yes, an other "allies" were more than eager to keep the fight on against the Russians, it was not like the Hungarians all deserted to the Russians once Horthy was invited to step back. But my ideals of today are certainly not moving towards the interests of a single nation or region.

But do you agree that as one who would commit treason, you deserve that punishment?

I can agree that my enemies might see my moves as treson to their views of the nation. I might feel the same way about them. I would understand that if caught by them I might get triad as a "traitor" wether I agree with being such or not.

Could you find any fault with your government executing you in such a situation?

I run the risk. I might get shot even by not doing anything other than voicing my opinion in such times.

They were collaborators and traitors. Its a fact.

One´s collaborators are other´s patriots and one´s patriots are other´s terrorist partisans. One could argue that the Italians that switched sides and fought for the Allies after 1943 were traitors too, much like the Communist partisans executing unarmed fascists all across the Peninsula. Much like French collaborators do not need to be traitors to anything since Petain and Vichy had as much validity as Bagdoglio and his gang.
Yet I understand that each side is very willing to paint the other as "traitors". It fits nicely.

Since these were often spontaneous acts by liberated populations taking out their spite against the Germans

Spountaneous? I think you are a bit off here

and their lackies,

I have kept this very much civil..I do hope you can do as much and keep this objective. I have no intention in debating with petty shots and slurs.

I don't see how it reflects on the government. Charles de Gaulle wasn't shaving women's heads.

Do you even know on how many people it is estimated the "patriot" french toke "spontaneous" reprisals?

And thats pretty benign compared to what the Germans were doing to people who wouldn't fight, let alone those who helped the Allies.

A war is certainly brutal and I wont excuse a good amount of excessive zeal in carrying out reprisals but I asure I have no respect for the "liberators" either who had their fair share of "spontaneity"

It is your perogative to be in error.

LOL, BS is cheap

A good reason. The destruction of the legal organ for removing them would leave me no other recourse. As long as that option is available, it would be beneath me to resort to violence.

Even if it would be the ellected majority using the very constitution to change its laws? Why would you oppose a perfectly legal destruction of your organs if the majority would agree with it? Are you some sort of traitor? :p

Yes. But I would not fight for the nation, in that instance. I would speak against them until I was imprisoned or executed.

You are funny, always have.

I'm a patriot. I love this nation, not some foreign despot or ideology.

Despot? So if your nation would be ruled by those, as you say, would make you "speak against them until I was imprisoned or executed" and some ideological twin of your beloved ideals would decide to "liberate" you from these oppresors, you would not help them?

- " The point is that what is 'natural' is not always desirable."


Then how about EFFICIENCY?

Tribally or religiously tightly connected people (like Jews, Japanese, Freemasons and even Jehovah's Witnesses, believe it or not) very often outcompete atomistic individuals who are only connected by the bland tie of common citizenship, that invention of the Enlightenment.


Even Christians were originally much more inward-oriented than you'd believe when you see what some of these ecumenical mainstream churches preach today. For instance, apostle Paul forbade Christians to take their internal quarrels to be solved by a pagan judge (1 Cor. 6:1-8)


Petr

Oh yes it does, Odin has said his loyalty is not to Germany propper but to a certain political outlook, he even said he loathes actual Germany. So, given that his loyalty is commanded by his poltical beliefs my question still stands.

Or maybe you should ask if Odin would take up arms to defend Chile against an Invasion force by Schröder :p
Yes I would.

In this "NS Germany v/s Chile" (A very life-like idea :rolleyes: ) I wouldn't "aid" the invading forces of Germany, I would join them.
In other words, I wouldn't be a partisan, I would proudly wear the soldier's uniform, and openly fight for the only cause worthy of the lives of the Aryan People: National Socialism

Times have certainly changed and what was yesterdays ideas can and might have evolved into something more encompassing as you have certainly seen in your time here.


The majority seem to cling to yesterday.


Of course so it was back then, evethough Germany had no problems fighting on on its own metropolitan area.


Germany had no choice. Hungary did.


And it was hardly in Germany´s "interest" for Hungary to become a battleground much like it wasn´t Germay to become one.


Sure it was. It was in Germany's interest to hold the Carpathians against the Soviets.That it wasn't in Hungary's interests didn't matter to Germany.



Yes, an other "allies" were more than eager to keep the fight on against the Russians


Some were. Many were not. None were given a choice.



But my ideals of today are certainly not moving towards the interests of a single nation or region.


Ah. So if there was a conflict of interests between a Federal Germany and a National Socialist France, you would support the French?


I can agree that my enemies might see my moves as treson to their views of the nation. I might feel the same way about them.


You don't feel the slightest bit of hesitation or remorse at the idea of siding with a foreign power to fight your own countrymen?



One´s collaborators are other´s patriots and one´s patriots are other´s terrorist partisans.


Not always. The Germans didn't think highly of Vlasov, for example, even though he was collaborating with the Germans.


One could argue that the Italians that switched sides and fought for the Allies after 1943 were traitors too


Traitors to whom? The removal of Mussolini from power was done by several groups. The Italian government wanted out of the war.

Where is the treason?


Much like French collaborators do not need to be traitors to anything since Petain and Vichy had as much validity as Bagdoglio and his gang.


You certainly can't believe in Vichy legitimacy while their German conquerers sat on half of France.



Yet I understand that each side is very willing to paint the other as "traitors". It fits nicely.


I don't think you would hesitate in saying that German Communists in the 1920s were traitors. Nor do I think you believe that to be a 'relative' term in that case.


Spountaneous? I think you are a bit off here


The Dutch were organized to punish collaborators?

Do you even know on how many people it is estimated the "patriot" french toke "spontaneous" reprisals?


There are more peoples under German occupation than the French. The Germans didn't win any points in the Netherlands or in Italy or in Greece or in Yugoslavia or in Poland. The people didn't need to be coerced to vent their anger at collaborators.


Even if it would be the ellected majority using the very constitution to change its laws? Why would you oppose a perfectly legal destruction of your organs if the majority would agree with it?


Because it would be the destruction of the nation I grew up in, and the end of the nation I knew of as the United States. It would be something else, something to which I owe no allegiance.


Are you some sort of traitor?


No, in such an instance I would be a stateless person.



Despot? So if your nation would be ruled by those, as you say, would make you "speak against them until I was imprisoned or executed" and some ideological twin of your beloved ideals would decide to "liberate" you from these oppresors, you would not help them?

I wouldn't take up arms against my own countrymen.

Odin before you go off to order your reproduction SS schutze uniform I would ask you to ponder HM's answers to Ebusitanus anad ask yourself one quesion;
Given all that took place in the occupied lands can you honestly say that any nation would have German rule ( as per Adolf Hitler) back again ?

Therein lies your answer to the legacy which NSDAP left Europe , the point is valid , when nations attempted to look to thier own interets they were regarded as traitors , choice did not exist.

Ah. So if there was a conflict of interests between a Federal Germany and a National Socialist France, you would support the French?


An answer to this question interests me, Ebus. :)