WW2 Has so many Plot Holes...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[salan2]

lets put it into perspective.  a building near where i work blew up and caught fire.  It took them a long time to put it out due to its intensities.  All the vehicles that were in the adjoining parking lot were melted by the heat...  everything that COULD melt, melted... all the outsides of the cars bubbled in places.  And these things weren't exactly close by it.

if there had been people that close unprotected they wouldn't have survived. and that was simply 1 building generating the heat. 

in order to topple a concrete building by pure heat.. wow... no wonder the death toll was so high there.

[AmPM]

Immanio, Stalin was actually responsible for more deaths by far than Hitler, but yes, both terrible terrible men.

[salan2]

didn't they also bomb dresden multiple times ... once to start the fires, once to catch the rescuers?

[Spartan_Marine88]

lets put it into perspective.  a building near where i work blew up and caught fire.  It took them a long time to put it out due to its intensities.  All the vehicles that were in the adjoining parking lot were melted by the heat...  everything that COULD melt, melted... all the outsides of the cars bubbled in places.  And these things weren't exactly close by it.

if there had been people that close unprotected they wouldn't have survived. and that was simply 1 building generating the heat. 

in order to topple a concrete building by pure heat.. wow... no wonder the death toll was so high there.

During a discussion i had about it, and with knowledge about the level of destruction i wonder if anyone in the city itself did survive and if the Allies reported survivors were not just rural farmers close enough to be counted. Also as it turned parts of the city into incinerators finding remains may not be possible combined with shaky censuses on population at the time .we know approximate population numbers but there is know way to know accuracy  (Honestly would the Noble Allies (as propaganda would have made them out to be) wanted to know they wiped out an entire city to get a military target.

And don't quote the nukes as that was "a necessary sacrifice to end a war and stop further loss of life" plus mushroom cloud is a lot harder to cover up than burned down buildings from a raid.

[Akranadas]

Why did they want to cover up a Mushroom cloud, it sent a clear message to the soviets "Look what we can do, don't think about it"

[salan2]

probably is one of the main things that stopped them in germany.. otherwise who knows, maybe france would have been part of the iron curtain..

[ImmanioEiR]

Normally i hate to quote wikipedia but this is well documented, but their quote for germany civilian deaths is between 700 000 - 2.2 mil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

How interesting, as this is the exact same page I was quoting as well, except I actually read the explanation: About 3-400 000 of those civilian casualties were casualties of the Allied strategic bombing. About 125 000 were casualties of the Battle of Berlin. About 370 000 were killed by the Nazi regime through racial/religious persecution and killing of sick people. In total about 865 000 Germans civilians died during the actual war. The rest of the number is the Germans who died due to the Soviet expulsions and forced labour, an uncertain number that probably is up to 2 million.

Once again as this is sources acquired from Allied countries it is not unimaginable for the civilian deaths they caused to be downplayed, while their own civilian deaths to be played up.

And then you actually check the source, and find out it's made by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office.

Also the numbers are from germany's borders which says nothing about the interior where there are higher concentration of civilians and military facilities where allied bombing runs would be heavier

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just overeager and not stupid: The numbers are for deaths within the German borders of 1937 (so not including Austria, Czechoslovakia etc that were annexed by Germany before the war broke out), not on the border...

As for Dresden, the casualties of the bombing there were about 25-35 000. A horrendous number, certainly, but far from hundreds of thousands. To bring up David Irving once again, he originally claimed up to 250 000 in his 1963 book, and this got quoted a lot, but... well, it turned out he was pretty much lying through his teeth, and basing it on rumours. (In later editions of his book he has since adjusted the number to 50-100 000, which any actual historian will tell you is way too high.)

[Guderian]

Fun fact:

Hitler was intending to wipe out and enslave the whole east European people far succeeding any other genocide in history combined.

[Spartan_Marine88]

How interesting, as this is the exact same page I was quoting as well, except I actually read the explanation: About 3-400 000 of those civilian casualties were casualties of the Allied strategic bombing. About 125 000 were casualties of the Battle of Berlin. About 370 000 were killed by the Nazi regime through racial/religious persecution and killing of sick people. In total about 865 000 Germans civilians died during the actual war. The rest of the number is the Germans who died due to the Soviet expulsions and forced labour, an uncertain number that probably is up to 2 million. And then you actually check the source, and find out it's made by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office.I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just overeager and not stupid: The numbers are for deaths within the German borders of 1937 (so not including Austria, Czechoslovakia etc that were annexed by Germany before the war broke out), not on the border...

As for Dresden, the casualties of the bombing there were about 25-35 000. A horrendous number, certainly, but far from hundreds of thousands. To bring up David Irving once again, he originally claimed up to 250 000 in his 1963 book, and this got quoted a lot, but... well, it turned out he was pretty much lying through his teeth, and basing it on rumours. (In later editions of his book he has since adjusted the number to 50-100 000, which any actual historian will tell you is way too high.)

Dude your my hero. First German War Office well seeing as how info is collected after the war is effectively the same as the US.

Second there is no Allied Bombing Casualties tab. there is a Civillian deaths tab though.

and Lastly David Irving what a great and reliable source, especially when its a court case used the fact that he was a follower of Hitler and a 'Holocaust Denier' to get facts changed in his book.

Dude i think you need to start researching your allied Fandom. Because as the thread says there be plot holes and i am good at finding them

Fun fact:

Hitler was intending to wipe out and enslave the whole east European people far succeeding any other genocide in history combined.

Well your status would be based upon your 'Aryan qualities'

and Staling did do a worse genocide then Hitler  to the Armenians i believe but they are all dead so we kind of forget about them. Hitler even based what he did on it, but just wanted to do it more efficiently

[Mister Schmidt]

Sarcasm is lost.

[Draken]

Searching WW2 plot holes on internet = epic fail.

And about russians raping and murdering german civilans (they had orders to do so) from theirs perspective they can be justificated for it, since what germans did on their land is even worse.

After all the biggest winner of ww2 was US same in ww1, look how others fight and after all sides gets exhausted and abuse it.

[Mysthalin]

And sell tons of tanks and weapons to the winning side, ofc.

[ImmanioEiR]

There is a breakdown of the numbers, in the footnotes. Footnote 19 is about Germany, and if you haven't already, read that. That's where the numbers I posted are.

Please, please , please don't tell me you actually believe David Irving, I'm hoping there's still some hope for you. It doesn't take "Allied fanboyism" to look at his so-called research and realize that it's anything but. Please investigate his sources before taking anything he says to be true.

I'm not trying to say the allies did nothing wrong, and that includes the Western allies although mostly on a smaller scale than the Soviets. I don't really think the strategic bombing of German cities was worth the cost in human lives. But I'm asking you to look at numbers that aren't actually pulled from empty air and realize that there was nothing admirable, necessary or desirable about the Nazi regime. I'm all for putting the searchlight on Allied war crimes, but you cannot use them to say "The Axis weren't really too bad", because they were, and I hope the world never forgets that.

I'm not a historian, but I am a scientist. There is a big difference between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is someone who raises questions about accepted truths, and seeks to find answers to those questions through scientific means. If the answer is that the accepted truths are indeed right, then he accepts that. Skeptics are desirable, to keep the mainstream on their toes. Deniers, however, set out with a certainty that the accepted truths are wrong, and will only listen to anything that supports their view. When the numbers are in and show that the accepted truths were in fact truths, they say "then the numbers must be wrong." I implore you, be a skeptic, not a denier.

We are lucky to live in a society where it is in fact possible to raise critical questions, and many critical questions have in fact been raised. Numbers such as for instance the casualties of allied bombing have been examined, re-examined, and debated ad nauseam, and that is why we do have the numbers we have today: Somewhere around 350-400 000. This isn't just based on what the allied bomber command claimed. The whole "the victor writes history so the numbers are all lies" just doesn't hold up, it's akin to making a statement that cannot be verified or falsified and then saying "it must be true because you cannot disprove it". Look at World War I as an example: We don't say today that the Germans, or Austro-Hungarians, or Ottomans were any more evil than their opponents, even though they lost. It's generally agreed that all the major belligerents pretty much wanted a war, because they all thought they'd win easily.

You call me an allied fanboy, and in a sense I am: I'm very glad that the allies won the war, exactly because I have investigated. I live in a country that didn't suffer huge casualties during its occupation by Germany, but that did see the oppression. I can look at a house and know that's where the Gestapo tortured captured Norwegians. I can look at a village not too far from my home city and know that the Germans burnt it down, sent all the men to concentration camps and interned the women because someone in the village helped Jews and resistance fighters escape to England.

You ask me to investigate my fanboyism. I have, and I've fount it well-founded. I now ask you to investigate your own views, and to go about it with scientific thoroughness and a willingness to accept that the establishment may in fact be right.

Edit: I do realize that this thread started out as a humorous dig, and that the "plot holes" in the original post had nothing to do with this discussion. I also know the truth of the old adage about "arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics". And to be honest, I suspect my attempts may be futile, and that preconceived notions will hold sway in the face of anything I say. Yet I still cannot let it pass without at least trying.

[Draken]

german cities were bombed as response to holocaust and other masacres started by germans (I read that in books), bombing german cities were not worth the civilian death, that made meh, who did that first? Who was breaking all unwritten and all human rights, becasue "we are better then them" while they acted like animals, well not all but most.

[NightRain]

Is it true that Nazi Germany's Lead Coy tried to eliminate Christianity from the World? They tried to lure the Pope to make his statement against Jew transportations but Pope didn't dare to as he didn't have a enough strong army to support him...true n/y?

[Spartan_Marine88]

While i agree, to lots of what you said, the 'establishment' of today is not the establishment of then. Numbers have been lost, destroyed in the war and sometimes down right made up. Today we can only look back as none of us were there.

And history was written by the victors, but there is an easy way around it and thats always read what their allies say, it tends to be alot more critical.

And lastly unfortunately Generals in ww2 especially allied ones, it was often a game of pride and skill trying to out do thier fellow general which leads to an unusually high amount of misinformation.

And don't misunderstand me I love my country, i am proud we helped pave the way to ally Victory. And while nuking Japan was necessary so the emperor could save face and gracefully step down in front of another 'godlike' power without losing his own higher status in order to save millions of lives ok i get it. But firebombing Dresden is something entirely different little purpose other then an act of cruelty and such things should never be forgotten.
 Especially when we lowered our selves to Hitlers level by creating our own concentration camps for Asians and mass murdering civilians with bombs and then creating a 'noble' term for it.

Collateral Damage

nice...

german cities were bombed as response to holocaust and other masacres started by germans (I read that in books), bombing german cities were not worth the civilian death, that made meh, who did that first? Who was breaking all unwritten and all human rights, becasue "we are better then them" while they acted like animals, well not all but most.

The bombing of Dresden was before they ever found out about the holocaust.

And allied infantry rarely murdered civilians in ww2 that was all the fly boys and generals, and even when they found the camps they just tortured and massacred the guards

Is it true that Nazi Germany's Lead Coy tried to eliminate Christianity from the World? They tried to lure the Pope to make his statement against Jew transportations but Pope didn't dare to as he didn't have a enough strong army to support him...true n/y?

I am not sure he tried to eliminate Christianity as that could be easily seen as a predominately 'Aryan' religion, but it might be. Although given general Christian history toward any other religion i wonder if they really cared

[NightRain]

Though, despite all one has to say that both sides did cruelties. Harsh Cruelities but most of those are not documentated for various of reasons. Media ignored all friendly casualities and posted only about enemy casualities. All mindless murdering was ignored and undocumentated and hid hoping that it never happened and never be revealed. There is no good or bad side in war. There is only mindless murdering. No one was good in World War 2. No one. Not even Finns, even Finns did some cruel things that people never talk about- it was hidden AND forgotten.


Does any of you know ANY country that fought TOGETHER with the Axis during WW2 but NEVER got occupied by a foreign Army?

[Killer344]

If you guys don't separate germans from nazis I'll lock the tread, it's just damn stupid to generalize a whole country like that.

[Grundwaffe]

If you guys don't separate germans from nazis I'll lock the tread, it's just damn stupid to generalize a whole country like that.

+1

[Mysthalin]

Actually, the Pope officially supported Hitler - he had even signed a concordate with Germany. Vatican was promised freedom, whereas Hitler got the political support to be able to pressure catholics under his regime - both of them won some.

The SS did indeed imprison quite a few religious types - but those were mostly "BibbelForschers" - a sect that refused to serve in the army due to their aparent dislike for violence(They had other specifics about their religion - such as having multiple wives). Monks, priests and other people of that extent were mostly just left alone.

And people keep mentioning the Jews - let's not forget the Gypsies didn't exactly have a good time in Nazi Germany either. It's fairly sad the world actually forgets about one nation, while mourning heavily over another when the nation that's being mourned over likely were better off in Nazi Germany than the forgotten one was.

I.. think that made sense, anyway.

War is never pretty, and nobody is always 100 percent noble and virtuous in it. I can guarantee you there were american soldiers raping german women, and I can guarantee there were german soldiers that would bring a part of their rations to starving french children. You can't just generalise it "good guys, bad guys". Heck - even the SS wasn't just full of psychotic weirdos. Quite a few SS troops were drafted from the occupied states, and they did anything they could to help the lives of those in the concentration camps(read Forest of Gods, if you find it in English, for an autobiographic take of one writer that survived a concentration lagger - good read).