Entrenchment!- A solution to soviet manpower!

[davewolf]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
People can be too hard on the German officers. Some but not all were opportunists. Von Stauffenberg was a key officer in organising the Caucasian and Russian troops to fight for the germans demanding that they be humanely treated as equals to German recruits in terms of pay, conditions etc. More than that he campaigned, with Rosenberg and others, for the end of the reign of terror in the SS controlled areas of the USSR, and for people in the occupied areas to be treated decently as potential allies - not untermensch - with proper treatment and the allies gained being Germany's only hope of winning the Russian war. These arguments were tried out in the Caucasus under Von Kleist's command where the German troops behaved totally differently to elsewhere on the Eastern front.
The ideas gained a large following and were put in writing with the argument going as high as the Nazi leadership where Hitler personally rejected them. Racist idiot as he was.
It was only then that Stauffenberg joined the resistence leading to the 1944 plot at which he gave up his life.
He is someone I think who should be honoured and not regarded as an opportunist.

Matt

So we aren't talking about underground work of the Social Democratic or Communistic Parties or the student resistance (brothers and sisters Scholl i.e.) but about the conservative resistance (including almost all opposing officers), right? Then let's see who those people were.

1. A lot of them weren't democrats at all.
They feared the Communists more than the Nazis. That's why a lot of them supported Hitler's appointment as Chancelor. He should finish off the communists and lead Germany back to power and after that they would finish off the Nazis (they thought). Did you ever hear about a seriously democratic state that not just banned an extremist party but arrested and murdered a lot of their members? But the Reichswehr didn't raise a hand against all that.
During the war they thought about their post-war Germany. Some of them preferred a military dictatorship, others like Goerdeler (designated chancelor after a successful 1944 revolt) also declined western democracy (just like they always declined the Weimar Republic). Germany should become an authoritarian state like it was 1871-1914 (second empire).

2. They mostly weren't pacifists.
Beck (designated head of state) only feared of loosing a war not of leading (and winning) one! They were realistic enough (unlike Hitler) to realize that Germany couldn't win a war against a large coalition. Nevertheless they wanted Germany to get back the territories lost in 1918. Before the war some of them had talks with foreigners about getting back the lost colonies. Supplementary the Baltics and the Balcans should become german spheres of influence. This would have meant the domination of the european continent for a long time!
As mentioned above they were realists. During the war they saw that Germany couldn't reach that goals and accepted that in order to avoid the total destruction of Germany.

Those people mainly used to think in a traditional imperialistic way and their goals were worlds apart from what (western) Germany became after WWII.

Sacrificing one's life to resist a tyrant shall be honoured. However one have to ask why they didn't try that before 1944?
Six (!) years of pre-war criminal dictatorship and more than 3 years of genocide passed before they reacted seriously! So IMO their hands weren't clean.

The main reason why post-war Germany still remebers the 20th July (means: the conservative resistance) more than what the sisters and brothers Scholl or (the almost forgotten) Georg Elsner did is simply that the 20th July plot is the excuse for the 'official' Germany (politicians, industrialists, nobility and so on) in order to wash their (and their ancestors') bloody hands clean.

Dave

[matt.buttsworth]

I agree militarists are not necessarily democratic, many did only want victory, and what they wanted afterwards was very suspect.
By the same token though, if one considers the Red Chappel, while many were anti-Nazi (good) many were also communist.
To turn your question on democratic credentials back on you: how many pre-war or post-war communist states were democratic?
The communists were more totalitarian than the militarist right.
To find democratic resisters of the Nazi party one must look within the ranks of the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats both of which were and remained democratic.
My particular point was about Stauffenberg who in many ways seemed an admirable character, not worthy of the general denunciation of the militarist clique. My knowlege of the political allignments of Beck et al is non-existent, but I take your word that they were militarist and anti-democrat.
By memory though, Beck I think opposed world war 2 from the outset, and went as far as revealing the plans of the German invasion of France to the English, who however rebutted any dealings with the German high command to remove Hitler.
The pre-war anti-world war 2 plans and anti-Hitler beliefs were shared by a number of german generals in the High Command but I do not have the references to say who. There was some conspiring though. After the success in Poland though, and particularly after France this resistance collapsed until during the Russian campaign.
My source for this was a very interesting TV film on Hitler's generals but unfortunately I do not have the book so I cannot say more.
Does anyone else know more about the anti-Nazi pre-war beliefs of some of the officer corps? If not I will have to get the book I guess....

[davewolf]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
I agree militarists are not necessarily democratic, many did only want victory, and what they wanted afterwards was very suspect.
By the same token though, if one considers the Red Chappel, while many were anti-Nazi (good) many were also communist.
To turn your question on democratic credentials back on you: how many pre-war or post-war communist states were democratic?
The communists were more totalitarian than the militarist right.
To find democratic resisters of the Nazi party one must look within the ranks of the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats both of which were and remained democratic.
My particular point was about Stauffenberg who in many ways seemed an admirable character, not worthy of the general denunciation of the militarist clique. My knowlege of the political allignments of Beck et al is non-existent, but I take your word that they were militarist and anti-democrat.
By memory though, Beck I think opposed world war 2 from the outset, and went as far as revealing the plans of the German invasion of France to the English, who however rebutted any dealings with the German high command to remove Hitler.
The pre-war anti-world war 2 plans and anti-Hitler beliefs were shared by a number of german generals in the High Command but I do not have the references to say who. There was some conspiring though. After the success in Poland though, and particularly after France this resistance collapsed until during the Russian campaign.
My source for this was a very interesting TV film on Hitler's generals but unfortunately I do not have the book so I cannot say more.
Does anyone else know more about the anti-Nazi pre-war beliefs of some of the officer corps? If not I will have to get the book I guess....

First I certainly didn't defend any communist regime. Why do you think I did?
All I want to say is that the conservative resistance had no moral scruples using (military) violence if it only served their objectives.

Beck believed (like many others) that Germany couldn't win a war as the attacker because they would face a large coalition. (That much he was obviously true.) This was the reason why he opposed a war of aggression not any war.

I have some books about the resistance and I'll look for quotes.

Dave

P.S. Curious as always: Your profile says you live in Switzerland but your name/handle doesn't sound Swiss at all. What does it mean?

[davewolf]

Matt

I asked after your nationality because my books are only in german and if I'd have found any quotes I'd have added the german original for those who can understand. Maybe my translation wouldn't be correct.
However I didn't find any useful quotes about our topic. The text is mostly descriptive with just some words quoted. So I cannot verify my opinion.
I only want to repeat my point as questions: The people we're talking about were well informed I think. They knew much about the Nazi crimes. So (here's a question) why did they wait 11 years (!) - I do count from 1933 on - before one of them (Stauffenberg) really did something? Isn't that a crime too?

Dave

[Muzrub]

Sacrificing one's life to resist a tyrant shall be honoured. However one have to ask why they didn't try that before 1944?

Just a quick word.

Many attempts were made on Hitlers life pre 1944. The officer Korps cannot be blamed for the placing of Hitler in power nor can it be totally blamed for failed attempts.

So (here's a question) why did they wait 11 years (!) - I do count from 1933 on - before one of them (Stauffenberg) really did something? Isn't that a crime too?

Here's an answer. They didnt wait 11 years- attempts were tried before and failed as Stauffenburg's did. The only reason why it is mentioned is because its the most famous of all in its tragedy. Many other attempts were not realised until either after the war or while information was being gathered for the traitors trials.
Another non military attempt by Georg Elser at the Burgerbraukeller- he acted alone. Hitler once again escaped by luck alone.
Your question is invalid- nor can it be considered a crime not to send someone on a suicide attempt to kill Hitler. Thats a different issue all together, a personal issue for some of the men invloved.

[matt.buttsworth]

I am Australian Davewolf but I live in Switzerland. I speak German so German quotes would be fine. I would be interested to see them.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
I am Australian Davewolf but I live in Switzerland. I speak German so German quotes would be fine. I would be interested to see them.

From Oz to Switzerland: was a big change in the climate (not only of course), wasn't it?

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Muzrub
They didnt wait 11 years- attempts were tried before and failed as Stauffenburg's did. The only reason why it is mentioned is because its the most famous of all in its tragedy. Many other attempts were not realised until either after the war or while information was being gathered for the traitors trials.
Another non military attempt by Georg Elser at the Burgerbraukeller- he acted alone. Hitler once again escaped by luck alone.

Muzrub
Once again you should read all posts. Matt and me were just discussing the conservative/military resistance, especially the Kreisau group and Stauffenberg.
There were several attempts from the very beginning but the first one done by an officer wasn't before 1943 (http://www.fortunecity.de/lindenpark/go ... /42att.htm , sorry, only german) - typically enough after the turning of the war - so it was 10 years of waiting for the military resistance.

The officer Korps cannot be blamed for the placing of Hitler in power nor can it be totally blamed for failed attempts.

You don't consider the historical circumstances. In 1932/33 Germany was very close to a civil war. The Reichswehr was the only (german) organisation/institution that guaranteed the continued existance of the Weimar Republic and the only one that really could threaten Hitler's dictatorship. And don't think they were unpolitical. In 1918/19 they quelled the communistic uprisings. But in 1933 they just were no longer interested in fighting for the republic.

Your question is invalid- nor can it be considered a crime not to send someone on a suicide attempt to kill Hitler. Thats a different issue all together, a personal issue for some of the men invloved.

No, it isn't.
During all those years, while people were murdered only because of their religion or their party membership or for any other stupid reason, the only force able to eliminate the dictatorship did nothing but talking, talking, talking. Wouldn't you call that a crime?
If so it would just tell me something about you IMO.

Dave

[RickyB]

There was no action on it, but I have heard of a plot by a number of officers in AG Center in 1941 to seize Hitler and take control of the government when he visited the HQ. I am not sure of the details, but they did not act for whatever reason. There were other plots also, but as you say, they pretty much turned out to just be talk until late in the war.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Muzrub

The officer Korps cannot be blamed for the placing of Hitler in power

Excuse me, but this is a very problematic statement to make. Sure, a lot of officers didn't like Hitler, and many others didn't like Communism, but when you look at what the Army *did* versus what they just said, its clear the military high command not only chose not to stop him, but they made a deal with him concering the SA which had become a threat to the German Army. If Hitler destroys the SA the military would not oppose him. But in the end they went even further than that. The Army made every man in the military take an oath of allegiance to Hitler personnally, not to Germany or its governent. If the military high command was consistently and solidly opposed to Hitler as you claim, I find it incredible they would go along with this allegiance oath to him. No, the Army CLEARLY put Hitler in power because they were the only force that could have stopped him, yet instead, they chose to make an oath of loyalty to him personally. Yes, there were officers opposed to Hitler, but they're views obviously did not represent the German military high command at that time.

[Muzrub]

In 1932/33 Germany was very close to a civil war. The Reichswehr was the only (german) organisation/institution that guaranteed the continued existance of the Weimar Republic and the only one that really could threaten Hitler's dictatorship

Well dave your nearly correct- but not quite.

During this time of a possible civil war the ReichsWehr coducted a military war game over a period of 3 days on the effects of strikes or an uprising of the KPD and the NSDAP- it was found that the Riechswehr would not be able to control the situation! They found they could not stop an uprising or a civil war in their current state. Von Schleicher used this information to out manouvre Von Papen. They believed both the military men and other German polititians that they could control Hitler and be rid of the Communists in one move- it failed.
The military that had suffered at the hands of foreign powers, that had struggled with leftist militia's and militia's from the right saw the oportunity for a raise in their position and what they believed Germanys rightful position in central Europe.
Its not a crime to miscalculate the steadfastness of Hitler, its unfortunate- but not a crime.

- typically enough after the turning of the war - so it was 10 years of waiting for the military resistance.

And what were they to do? The people still believed in Hitler, the frontline troops still believed he would resolve the situation and before the war how could they remove him after Germany's rise from a conquered country into once again a major power in central Europe?
Even the Kreisau cirlce battled with this truth- they wanted the world to know that at least some Germans were opposed to the regime- but they new that they never had support. They were idealists- that simple.

No, it isn't.

Well maybe you should have been a staff officer and an idealist and gave your life- its up to the individual to disregard his personal safety in the attempt to kill Hitler (in a suicide attempt) and if people did not choose such methods that does not make them cowards! But people did try suicide attempts and failed due to (one example) explosives being attached to their bodies failing to explode or sudden changes to Hitlers schedule.

During all those years, while people were murdered only because of their religion or their party membership or for any other stupid reason, the only force able to eliminate the dictatorship did nothing but talking, talking, talking. Wouldn't you call that a crime?

In hindsight maybe some of those officers would have talked less and acted more. In hindsight the German people would not have elected Hitler. In hindsight the western powers would have stoppd Hitler in the Rhineland etc etc etc.
Using this emotional arguement of screaming murder to incriminate the General staff is nonsense. I could also say if every Jew or communist fought back in '33 or during the war there would be no holocaust but whats the point? I am aware as we all are as to what Hitler and the Nazis done. It serves no purpose dave.

Wouldn't you call that a crime?
If so it would just tell me something about you IMO.

Would I call it a crime...... No. But I believe its unfortunate.

Dave your opinon of me matters very little- I did not make this a personal issue but you just did. I was discussing the situation that Germany and her people/military found itself in. If you dont like my opinion bad luck, get off the computer make a coffee and watch TV and think good thoughts!

[Muzrub]

If the military high command was consistently and solidly opposed to Hitler as you claim, I find it incredible they would go along with this allegiance oath to him.

I did not say that Ed.
You might wish to re-read.
I believe the High command connot be entirely blamed. There is a difference!

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Muzrub
During this time of a possible civil war the ReichsWehr coducted a military war game over a period of 3 days on the effects of strikes or an uprising of the KPD and the NSDAP- it was found that the Riechswehr would not be able to control the situation! They found they could not stop an uprising or a civil war in their current state.

The topic was overthrowing a government, not stopping an uprising. BTW if it would have been a communistic uprising the Reichswehr would have fought anyhow! That's for sure.

Von Schleicher used this information to out manouvre Von Papen. They believed both the military men and other German polititians that they could control Hitler and be rid of the Communists in one move- it failed.
The military that had suffered at the hands of foreign powers, that had struggled with leftist militia's and militia's from the right saw the oportunity for a raise in their position and what they believed Germanys rightful position in central Europe.

Exactly my point. Most of them WANTED the Nazis to come to power.

And what were they to do? The people still believed in Hitler, the frontline troops still believed he would resolve the situation and before the war how could they remove him after Germany's rise from a conquered country into once again a major power in central Europe?
Even the Kreisau cirlce battled with this truth- they wanted the world to know that at least some Germans were opposed to the regime- but they new that they never had support. They were idealists- that simple.

I've heard that a lot of times before. It's always a variation of the popular 'We/They couldn't do anything' theme.
Let me tell you just one thing about it. The german people could have stopped Hitler - at least during the first years of his 'government' - without the need of armed forces. How you ask? Well, did you ever hear of the Kapp putsch?
If there would have been a general strike in 1933 or 1934 Hitler wouldn't have had any chance. And maybe less than 10% would have voted for the NSDAP in the next election, then he would have been forgotten very soon.
All your arguments just verify my point that none of the relevant organisations/institutions, nor the german people as a whole had the will to fight the Nazis.

In hindsight maybe some of those officers would have talked less and acted more. In hindsight the German people would not have elected Hitler. In hindsight the western powers would have stoppd Hitler in the Rhineland etc etc etc.
Using this emotional arguement of screaming murder to incriminate the General staff is nonsense. I could also say if every Jew or communist fought back in '33 or during the war there would be no holocaust but whats the point? I am aware as we all are as to what Hitler and the Nazis done. It serves no purpose dave.

Would I call it a crime...... No. But I believe its unfortunate.

This is nonsens. You don't need the wisdom of hindsight to know that arresting and murdering your neighbour just because he has the wrong religion or belongs to the wrong party is simply a crime. And to know that a criminal government cannot be legitimate. All you need is some kind of relevant morale.

Dave your opinon of me matters very little- I did not make this a personal issue but you just did. I was discussing the situation that Germany and her people/military found itself in. If you dont like my opinion bad luck, get off the computer make a coffee and watch TV and think good thoughts!

Poor comment, showing only that you don't understand what this discussion is really about.
Well, it's about personal responsibility. To say 'I didn't to anything wrong' only because one didn't murder anybody himself is VERY cheap.
If a Nazi-like party should come to power where I live and I'd belong to the wrong party or had the wrong religion I'd surely wish to have neighbours who wouldn't prefer to talk the next 10 years before doing anything. And there is where it becomes personal: to know who probably would be one of to those people who would fight for others or one of those who would not.

I definitely didn't say that I would fight and I will never say so because I don't know it.
What I do know is that we all have a responsibility to not just look away.

[Muzrub]

The topic was overthrowing a government, not stopping an uprising. BTW if it would have been a communistic uprising the Reichswehr would have fought anyhow! That's for sure.

But the Riechswehr was not capable of puting down an insurection- which would have played a part in any overthrowing of the Government. This enlarges the topic. Why argue a topic if you dont consider all possiblities dave?

Exactly my point. Most of them WANTED the Nazis to come to power.

Yes- they were considered a better option to the Communists and they could have possibly been controled.

I've heard that a lot of times before. It's always a variation of the popular 'We/They couldn't do anything' theme.
Let me tell you just one thing about it. The german people could have stopped Hitler - at least during the first years of his 'government' - without the need of armed forces.

No- the german people were torn, nor was Hitler (or Nazi party) the oppresive figure which they became later and they were the only party who took action and tried to resolve the economic problems that oppressed the nation.

If there would have been a general strike in 1933 or 1934 Hitler wouldn't have had any chance. And maybe less than 10% would have voted for the NSDAP in the next election, then he would have been forgotten very soon.

A general strike! Against what in 1934? In 1934 the Nazi party was not as oppressive as it was during the war years. Sure they singled out select groups over time. These groups were blamed for the current crises that Germany found herself in and such they had public support to remove these groups. If an election was held in 1935 I dare say Hitler would have had many supporters, if the election was held in 1936 he would have won by a landslide!

This is nonsens. You don't need the wisdom of hindsight to know that arresting and murdering your neighbour just because he has the wrong religion or belongs to the wrong party is simply a crime. And to know that a criminal government cannot be legitimate. All you need is some kind of relevant morale.

I used that paragraph as an example of hindsight, which is what most of your arguement is based on- even if you wont admit it!
If someone had said that by 1945 Germany would be in ruins, and 11 million people died in camps or as a force labourer nobody would have believed it. No-one believed the scale in which the Nazi's operated on. Its fine for you to use a moral arguement to assist you but alas its a question of hindsight and morals cannot be instituted without prior knowledge of how evil the Nazi's were- and no-one new at the time how truely evil they really were! This is the problem. This is why there was no insurection, no objections to their Authority.
As the catch phrase was at the time-"if only the Fuhrer new" people believed that Dave, its not a cop out, its not an excuse but its a fact.

Poor comment, showing only that you don't understand what this discussion is really about.
Well, it's about personal responsibility. To say 'I didn't to anything wrong' only because one didn't murder anybody himself is VERY cheap.

What do you want dave? Did you want the every German to stand up and be counted? It was not going to happen, it does not happen now! Why would it have happened then?
And dont mention poor comment- when you make the measure of myself based on what I have written here (which is not accepting the nazi's in anyway) you yourself need some self reflection my friend!

If a Nazi-like party should come to power where I live and I'd belong to the wrong party or had the wrong religion I'd surely wish to have neighbours who wouldn't prefer to talk the next 10 years before doing anything. And there is where it becomes personal: to know who probably would be one of to those people who would fight for others or one of those who would not.

Dave once again thats an hindsight issue- Yes I would oppose the Nazis too! But at the time who knows? Both of us could have been their greatest supporters or both thrown into camps. Your using your modern day view of the situation and condeming the people who knew no better in Germany at that time. You cant convict a people based on what we know now- considering its nearly impossible to know what they new then!

The Nazis's didnt arrest everyones neighbour! Not everyone knew a Jew, not everyone knew a communist- not eveyone knew someone whose door was knocked in by the Gestapo. If they did then maybe your General strike theory or moral issues would come into play!

I definitely didn't say that I would fight and I will never say so because I don't know it.
What I do know is that we all have a responsibility to not just look away.

I agree.
But your using what we know now to condem others actions in the past!

[davewolf]

It was already enough said (especially at the articles posted here: showthread.php?threadid=18288 ) to let one understand, if one wants to.

[Muzrub]

Dave nobodies denying people could have stood up.
But even in todays society in many nations people dont stand up.

I dont know why you're beating yourself up over this issue.
I dare say German society is very different now to what it was then, but many societies today face the same problems. People outside a of a nation ruled by a dictator can see the injustice, but sometimes and in particular the case of Germany many people didnt see it or just ignored it went about their lives.
In either case there was enough believers in Germany who supported Hitler, if not the regime.

I agree with you people should have took a moral stand! But who would have believed the true lengths the Nazi's had gone to, nobody could ever have believed that 11 million people would die in camps.
To morally object to a regime and to act is a different thing entirely. The German people would not have reacted in 1934, and they never did and by the later part of the '30's many saw no reason to physically act on their moral objections- to do so would have turned Hitler into some sort of GOD anyhow.

Its a hard lesson- but hopefully something the world has learnt from.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Muzrub


I did not say that Ed.
You might wish to re-read.
I believe the High command connot be entirely blamed. There is a difference!

Oh hell, not this again. Muzrub it is you who should reread your post again. In fact, you really need to reread them before you post, otherwise you'll keep creating situations like this one over and over again. Here is what you said:

"Many attempts were made on Hitlers life pre 1944. The officer Korps cannot be blamed for the placing of Hitler in power nor can it be totally blamed for failed attempts."

The last sentence is saying 2 things:

a) The officer corps cannot be blamed for the placing of Hitler in power

and

b) It can't be totally blamed for the failed attempts.

I replied to the first one, which has no adjective associated with the word 'blame'. It simply and clearly states the officer corps had no role in Hitler's rise to power. Period. This is however factually incorrect. They did play a role, a major role it seems to me. If you meant "the officer corps is not to be entirely blamed for Hitler's rise to power", why the hell don't you just say that's what you meant, instead of accusing me I don't know how to read English?

[Muzrub]

Ed - the nit picker.

Yes the word entirely is missing, if you read the other posts I have written you could surely see that was plainly an error on my part, I dont proof read what I write.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention- though I believe you could have got the jist of what I saying by reading the other posts that followed the original.

Any other problems I can help you with?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Muzrub

Ed - the nit picker.

Ahh yes, the name calling begins! Show your true colors Muzrub.

Yes the word entirely is missing

Finally! See, that wasn't so difficult to say, was it?

if you read the other posts I have written you could surely see that was plainly an error on my part,

Wrong. You were defending the German Army from accusations in the other arguments. Your statement that I objected to was also a defense of the German Army and was consistent with your other assertions, it wasn't obvious that it was a malformed sentence..

I dont proof read what I write.

Obviously. The sad thing is, you'd rather start a flame war than admit to a mistaken sentence.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention-

You're welcome Mr. Muzrub, although I know there isn't a chance in hell that you'll change your ways, you want these arguments after all.

Any other problems I can help you with?

Oh, I don't know, your admission that it your statement was a mistake more or less clears things up about the issue I was responding to..

There is the matter of the larger issue at hand. You see, the reason people are arguing with you is because you are trying to defend the German military high command who history shows to be indefensible. Unfortunately, this is your problem, and I can't help you solve it, you have to recognize the truth for yourself.

[Muzrub]

Ahh yes, the name calling begins! Show your true colors Muzrub.

Are you serious Ed?

I called you a nit picker, its not a bad thing, its normally used in jest or just a throw away comment, but if you so choose to let it anger you deep down into your soul- go ahead, I find it rather funny!
Maybe I should have added a funny face!!!:D

Finally! See, that wasn't so difficult to say, was it?

I wish I noticed its absence in the first place!- It would have saved this little side show.

Wrong. You were defending the German Army from accusations in the other arguments. Your statement that I objected to was also a defense of the German Army and was consistent with your other assertions, it wasn't obvious that it was a malformed sentence..

Fine- Ed.
You have any over hobbies other than nit picking?

Obviously. The sad thing is, you'd rather start a flame war than admit to a mistaken sentence.

FLAME WAR! What are you on about matey? Your really going to far here Ed, this is getting really silly. I thought you would at least know better thanto throw silly statements around!

BTW- After you brought it to my attention I did say I forgot the "word". When you first mentioned it I said you were wrong for I did not say that, alas it could be interpreted I did back a certain arguement because I missed one word I thought I would have not forgetten.
I latter admitted to this error which is what your reply post is about and you come up with some crazy flame post bullshit!

You're welcome Mr. Muzrub, although I know there isn't a chance in hell that you'll change your ways, you want these arguments after all.

Just Muzrub will do fine.
Your the one arguing mate.
This is really foolish- your making yourself sound like a clown.
I had no intention of arguing with YOU!!!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND!

Oh, I don't know, your admission that it your statement was a mistake more or less clears things up about the issue I was responding to..

Then why carry on Ed?

I replied to the first one, which has no adjective associated with the word 'blame'. It simply and clearly states the officer corps had no role in Hitler's rise to power. Period. This is however factually incorrect. They did play a role, a major role it seems to me. If you meant "the officer corps is not to be entirely blamed for Hitler's rise to power", why the hell don't you just say that's what you meant, instead of accusing me I don't know how to read English?

Read my other posts- I ment to add the word entirely, maybe I should edit the post and add it but it does not matter now!

I was saying what I ment- I just missed ONE WORD!!!!!!!!!!

Quote where I say you cannot read ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW- This is very childish Ed- grow up!