RIP Otto Carius

Im am bearer of sad news, Yesterday one of the last german heroes and excellent tankers passed away!
Also one of my favorites!

On another note, i do recommend to read his book if you havent done so, Tigers in the mud! To honor him

And what he did and worked with after the war untill yesterday!
Tiger Apotheke

Otto Carius, probably the last surviving Panzer Ace of WW2 died on the 24th January after a brief illness.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/

With 150 confirmed tank kills, most if not on the East Front, he was the number 2 German Panzer Aces after Kurt Knispel. He survived the war and became a pharmacist. He took over a pharmacy in 1956 which he rechristened the Tiger Apotheke.

He is now in the Walhalla of great warriors. May He Rest in Peace!

Sorry Donken I double posted as I did not see your until I posted mine! Anyway he was such a giant of the tank world that he surely deserves as much!

I don't quite agree with some of his sentiments as expressed by him in the foreword to the English translation of his book "Tigers in the Mud".

"We are especially grateful when we think of our fallen comrades who,
together with volunteers from all countries of Western Europe, fought to
be saved from communism and whose memory has been stained by
defamation."

That's not really what they were doing.

But I agree with the rest of his feelings in that foreword.

R.I.P.
He was famous tanker. I've his book "Tigers in the Mud".

PS
Frinik, I've merged er post to this topic.

We are especially grateful when we think of our fallen comrades who,
together with volunteers from all countries of Western Europe, fought to
be saved from communism and whose memory has been stained by
defamation

Yeah it's about as true as to say that "Eastern Europe was liberated by the Red Army" or that the Allies were fighting for democracy and human rights....

WW2 - no matter the hagiography made around it - was a war of propaganda. There was no virtuous side; only some of the countries committed less crimes or had clearer consciences than others.

What's interesting is that in that foreword he talks about how the Germans have been deceived and propagandized since 1945 about the doubtful honor of being a soldier to the point that they won't countenance armed action for any purpose whatsoever.  Yet he should have known full well by the time he wrote that foreword to the English translation that he himself had been deceived about what the German war aims were.

While it's true that neither side was without sin during the war, it is not justifiable to portray a moral equivalence between the two sides.

Just re-reading your post frinik, shows that you said about the same thing in your last sentence.

Otto Carius was a man of his time. He was impregnated with the nationalistic-jingoistic culture that prevailed in Germany and in fact in great parts of Europe and the Western World at the time. Even though he probably was not a National Socialist he certainly sympathized with the aims of Hitler to recover Germany's national pride and place amongst the great nations of the World. It's likely that 75 % of all Germans held similar views. While he certainly deluded himself with the ultimate aims of the Nazi Party 's policy he was absolutely right when he said the German had swung to the other extreme to the point that modern German foreign policy has become a pretext to avoid any type of involvement, responsibilities and interventionism in whatever form unless pushed by other countries.

As for the moral equivalence , I can say without blinking an eye that the contrast between the whitewashing of Soviet crimes committed between 1917-1945 and the scrutiny which Nazi Germany's crimes were submitted is shameful. Just because the Soviets murdered primarily people of their own country or of Eastern Europe does not make their crimes less glaring .Stalinism and Leninism cost the lives of 30 million people executed, starved or worked to death. Even the Nazis themselves were inspired by the Soviets when they set up their own concentrations camps, their secret police .As for extermination of European Jewry, I am sure the deliberate starvation of Ukraine's peasants between 1936-1938 and the indifferent reaction of the World must have played a role in convincing the Nazi leadership that they could get away with mass murder with little consequences. Considering widespread anti-semitism present in Europe and North America they were not far off the mark. Soviet Communism and German National Socialism were the 2 sides of the same coin.

The Western Allies themselves with policies of eugenics, racial discrimination or apartheid( in their own countries or in their empires), the subjugation of entire countries and races to their empire ( British, French and even the Americans had their quasi colonial dominion in the Americas and Asia), latent anti immigrant and semitism were hardly role models... The British were responsible for millions of deaths in their empire though ruthless economic and social policies and the American occupation of the Philippines resulted in a million Filipinos killed between 1900 and 1911 mostly in retalations for resisting the American occupation.

That being said it means at look at the war with less of the black and white slant that Hollywood and historians and politicians in the West have been trying to depict in the last 70 years....

Frinik wrote:As for the moral equivalence , I can say without blinking an eye that the contrast between the whitewashing of Soviet crimes committed between 1917-1945 and the scrutiny which Nazi Germany's crimes were submitted is shameful. Just because the Soviets murdered primarily people of their own country or of Eastern Europe does not make their crimes less glaring .Stalinism and Leninism cost the lives of 30 million people executed, starved or worked to death. Even the Nazis themselves were inspired by the Soviets when they set up their own concentrations camps, their secret police .As for extermination of European Jewry, I am sure the deliberate starvation of Ukraine's peasants between 1936-1938 and the indifferent reaction of the World must have played a role in convincing the Nazi leadership that they could get away with mass murder with little consequences. Considering widespread anti-semitism present in Europe and North America they were not far off the mark. Soviet Communism and German National Socialism were the 2 sides of the same coin.

The Western Allies themselves with policies of eugenics, racial discrimination or apartheid( in their own countries or in their empires), the subjugation of entire countries and races to their empire ( British, French and even the Americans had their quasi colonial dominion in the Americas and Asia), latent anti immigrant and semitism were hardly role models... The British were responsible for millions of deaths in their empire though ruthless economic and social policies and the American occupation of the Philippines resulted in a million Filipinos killed between 1900 and 1911 mostly in retalations for resisting the American occupation.

I am fully conscious about the Nazi-Fascist war crimes and I wholeheartedly condemn them. I am basque and I do know very well about the Gernika bombing and other war crimes. But I also fully agree with Frinik. Brilliant exposition about a truth that everybody must face.

Txema

All very true frinik but you also can't blink an eye at the notion that the world is better off because of the side that won WW2.  And that's without any Hollywood slant.  

Who are you saying has white washed the Soviet crimes?  Besides the Soviets, only the communist party in the west has done that.  Who besides those parties would benefit from white washing the Soviet record in the post war era?

The purges, massacres, starvation, force collectivizations and relocations and all the other Stalinist crimes have been public knowledge in the West throughout my lifetime.  Germany's crimes could be examined and scrutinized in greater detail and the criminals brought to trial because she was a defeated enemy.  Unlike the Soviet Union and Stalin, buttressed by the Red Army, and very quickly nuclear weapons.

Pre-war, the world paid scant attention to what was happening inside Nazi Germany or in the Japanese occupied areas of China and Asia just as much as it ignored the happenings in the Soviet Union. Post war it is not surprising, nor particularly shameful, that the crimes of a country and a regime which started an aggressive war would be extensively examined.

Secondly, the last sentence of your first paragraph seems to agree completely with what I have written in my original statement about Carius.  That is;Carius deluded himself, even in later years, about what they were fighting for while at the same time pointing out that the German populace has likewise been led astray and deluded about their military and it's proper use since 1945.  I also agree that this swing by Germany has gone too far to the extreme.

Therefore we seem to agree on the point I originally raised about one individual, Otto Carius.

By the way the best estimates that I can find of Filipino casualties from 1899-1913 is between 34,000 and 220,000.  Not a small number, but far from a million.

Of course we can say much, but remember, during the war, it was another time, another life, ppl did now more about things than and also alot less.
Of course i think that Carius knew about what was going on in Germany, but on the other hand he did what he thought was right, he fought for hes country that was in war. Who can deny him that? I would do the same thing, wont you?

See at the Russians today? The Americans in Irac and afghanistan? They think they are doing the right thing! They are in war. For us that is not, we cant believe what they are doing, its wrong, is it not? This is exactly the same thing. Look at things with neutral eyes, dont take any side and you will see things much cleerer!


But more about Mr Carius, he was never ever accused of war crimes, he was a common soldier in Wehrmacht (regular army, as all countries have). So he could sleep in with a good and clean consius.

Otto Carius was a soldier. He was under order.
And there is a very unpopular theory - let's imagine that Hitler didn't start to attack USSR in June 1941.

BTW
The friendship between the peoples of Germany and of the Soviet Union, cemented by blood, has every basis for being lasting and firm.
J. Stalіn, 25 December, 1939
http://www.histdoc.net/history/stalin60.html

May he rest in peace.

Unfortunately, no matter what, Hitler would have attacked the SU. He was ideologically committed, it was clearly laid out in his Mein Kampf!!! It would have been as unthinkable as him renouncing his virulent anti Semitism and not trying to exterminate European Jewry...

On the other hand WW2 in the East without the brutal, racial war of extermination would not have lasted that long as the people of the SU would have probably rebelled against their Soviet-Stalinist masters and communism in the East would have been defeated. Tens of millions of human lives would have been spared...

frinik wrote:Unfortunately, no matter what,  Hitler would have attacked the SU. He was ideologically committed, it was clearly laid out in his Mein Kampf!!! It would have been as unthinkable as him renouncing his virulent anti Semitism and not trying to exterminate European Jewry...

On the other hand WW2 in the East without the brutal, racial war of extermination would not have lasted that long as the people of the SU would have probably rebelled against their Soviet-Stalinist masters and communism in the East would have been defeated. Tens of millions of human lives would have been spared...

Stupid is as stupid does.

This website says 600 000 killed:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Another article:http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm

claims:The Death Toll of American Occupation

The overall cost in human lives of American actions in the Philippines was horrific.  One scholar has concluded concerning the American occupation that "In the fifteen years that followed the defeat of the Spanish in Manila Bay in 1898, more Filipinos were killed by U.S. forces than by the Spanish in 300 years of colonization. Over 1.5 million died out of a total population of 6 million."[23]

A detailed estimate of both civilian and American military dead is offered by historian John Gates, who sums up the subject as follows:


"Of some 125,000 Americans who fought in the Islands at one time or another, almost 4,000 died there.  Of the non-Muslim Filipino population, which numbered approximately 6,700,000, at least 34,000 lost their lives as a direct result of the war, and as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the cholera epidemic at the war's end. The U. S. Army's death rate in the Philippine-American War (32/1000) was the equivalent of the nation having lost over 86,000 (of roughly 2,700,000 engaged) during the Vietnam war instead of approximately 58,000 who were lost in that conflict.  For the Filipinos, the loss of 34,000 lives was equivalent to the United States losing over a million people from a population of roughly 250 million, and if the cholera deaths are also attributed to the war, the equivalent death toll for the United States would be over 8,000,000.  This war about which one hears so little was not a minor skirmish."[24]

Yet another estimate states, "Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 with 16,000 actually counted, while civilian deaths numbered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipinos.  These numbers take into account those killed by war, malnutrition, and a cholera epidemic that raged during the war."[25]

That U.S. troops slaughtered Filipino civilians out of proportion to the conventions of so-called "formal" warfare was remarked upon during the Senate investigation of the war's conduct.  As one official from the War Department estimated,

However to put things into perspective, the American s did not do worse than the Europeans with the Belgians responsible for several millions deaths in the Congo(Zaire( from 1898-1908), the Germans killing 100 000 Herreros in Namibia( 1900-1906), the British also did their share in the Sudan, South Africa and India the Russian in Central Asia etc... Let's not forget the Ottoman Turks with the Greeks and Armenians 1904-1915....

Look at things with neutral eyes, dont take any side and you will see things much cleerer!

Yes, I can understand your meaning of that statement.

Sweden during WWII...

Quotes

It was not by chance that Sweden was Europes richest nation at the end of WWII.

There are many documents on the net and documentaries aired on swedish state television regarding the "swedish-nazi" cooperation during WWII.

Sweden actually did provide Germany with iron ore throughout most of the war. The Swedes were cooperative with the Germans (while they were still powerful) knowing full well they were at risk of invasion otherwise. As long as they cooperated the germans had no need to launch a costly invasion.

The invasion of Norway was to: Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from any Allied interdiction.

The generally sentiments of Swedes were that they wanted to remain neutral as they were in the First World War. However, in the early periods of the war, German victory was quite probable, so it had to make many concessions toward Germany. For an example, iron ore provided much of the iron supply for Germany.

Germany was heavily dependent on this Swedish iron ore in producing armaments, so Sir Ralph Glyn, a British Member of Parliament, even claimed that if Sweden stopped their exports it could lead to an end of the war within six months.
Among other important Swedish exports toward Germany were ball bearings, which were intensely used to make German military vehicles. SKF, a Swedish company which has been dominated ball bearing market even until now, produced the largest number of ball bearings, most of which was sold to Germany.

Swedes also allowed Germans to use the railway to transport supplies and German soldiers on leave through Sweden.

Later, as the situation becomes unfavorable toward Germany, Sweden is forced by the Allies to limit the usage of railroads and import of iron ore to end the war quickly. However, it is clear to observe that Sweden could maintain its neutrality because it accepted many of Germany's requests. Sweden had to do whatever Germany wanted them to do, otherwise suffer the consequence.

"Everything boiled down to the fact that in the spring and early summer of 1941 it looked quite probable that Germany would win the war, and Sweden dared not defy it."

Also must say... my grandmother on my father's side was born in Sweden and came to the USA as a young girl, sadly she passed away in 1970.

I have no idea why you take up that, and also only from that side =)

Not that it helps the discussion in any way

frinik wrote:This website says 600 000 killed:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Another article:http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm

claims:The Death Toll of American Occupation

The overall cost in human lives of American actions in the Philippines was horrific.  One scholar has concluded concerning the American occupation that "In the fifteen years that followed the defeat of the Spanish in Manila Bay in 1898, more Filipinos were killed by U.S. forces than by the Spanish in 300 years of colonization. Over 1.5 million died out of a total population of 6 million."[23]

A detailed estimate of both civilian and American military dead is offered by historian John Gates, who sums up the subject as follows:


"Of some 125,000 Americans who fought in the Islands at one time or another, almost 4,000 died there.  Of the non-Muslim Filipino population, which numbered approximately 6,700,000, at least 34,000 lost their lives as a direct result of the war, and as many as 200,000 may have died as a result of the cholera epidemic at the war's end. The U. S. Army's death rate in the Philippine-American War (32/1000) was the equivalent of the nation having lost over 86,000 (of roughly 2,700,000 engaged) during the Vietnam war instead of approximately 58,000 who were lost in that conflict.  For the Filipinos, the loss of 34,000 lives was equivalent to the United States losing over a million people from a population of roughly 250 million, and if the cholera deaths are also attributed to the war, the equivalent death toll for the United States would be over 8,000,000.  This war about which one hears so little was not a minor skirmish."[24]

Yet another estimate states, "Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 with 16,000 actually counted, while civilian deaths numbered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipinos.  These numbers take into account those killed by war, malnutrition, and a cholera epidemic that raged during the war."[25]

That U.S. troops slaughtered Filipino civilians out of proportion to the conventions of so-called "formal" warfare was remarked upon during the Senate investigation of the war's conduct.  As one official from the War Department estimated,

However to put things into perspective, the American s did not do worse than the Europeans with the Belgians responsible for several millions deaths in the Congo(Zaire( from 1898-1908), the Germans killing 100 000 Herreros in Namibia( 1900-1906), the British also did their share in the Sudan, South Africa and India the Russian in Central Asia etc... Let's not forget the Ottoman Turks with the Greeks and Armenians 1904-1915....

Those estimates are all over the place frinik.  In fact that first website by Zoltan Grossman starts with the stated premise that the US military preferred method is to slaughter civilians. That's pure hogwash and he loses all credibility. The US in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned inside out to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible, often to it's military disadvantage. The direct military deaths in the Philippines, are in line with the lower estimates.  The higher estimates count malnutrition and disease.  In fact John Gates, as you write above, uses 34,000 and 200,000 respectively.  I guess it's a matter of which stats and which website you choose to give credence to.

Not that it helps the discussion in any way

Sorry, but I was under the imprecision that the discussion was concerning the death of a soldier "Otto Carius",  as the title of the thread suggests?

I have no idea why you take up that, and also only from that side =)

And it was just my opinion about the comment. "Look at things with neutral eyes, dont take any side and you will see things much cleerer!"

And my main thought and opinion is... to me "neutral eyes" is more like having a "back seat driver" or "a person that only fights from the sidelines". They are always full of "wisdom" after the fact, but they manage to keep their hands so squeaky clean when the action is all over.

The Americans in Irac and afghanistan? They think they are doing the right thing!

One item, you neglected to add Africa to the list of countries the USA has invaded recently.

"The Obama administration is ramping up its response to West Africa's Ebola crisis, preparing to assign 3,000 US military to the afflicted region"

I am sure there is someone having fainting spells over this invasion also.

woofiedog wrote:Not that it helps the discussion in any way

Sorry, but I was under the imprecision that the discussion was concerning the death of a soldier "Otto Carius",  as the title of the thread suggests?

I have no idea why you take up that, and also only from that side =)

And it was just my opinion about the comment. "Look at things with neutral eyes, dont take any side and you will see things much cleerer!"

And my main thought and opinion is... to me "neutral eyes" is more like having a "back seat driver" or "a person that only fights from the sidelines". They are always full of "wisdom" after the fact, but they manage to keep their hands so squeaky clean when the action is all over.

1. No, afaik Sweden has nothing to do with Otto Carius, at all, neither during hes life or death ^^

2. And about neutral eyes, i meant throu a perspective about Otto, nothing less, nothing more.

3. And to be further offtopic, so you compare Swedens involvement in WW2 as a "back seat driver"? If you really do. You should read more about it, About Norway, Finland, Poland and the jews, Sweden was as far from backseat driving it possible could. Doing what they did and still stay neutral is an uncomparable feat, made by some excellent and smart people in the government!

We can't remake history we can only live with its consequences...

was not by chance that Sweden was Europes richest nation at the end of WWII.

There are many documents on the net and documentaries aired on swedish state television regarding the "swedish-nazi" cooperation during WWII.
The same can be said of Switzerland which now the richest country in the world in terms of per capita gdp . The Swiss collaborated with all sides as they wanted to remain independent and neutral.

They provided Germany with high precision tools and machinery including gyroscopes essential for V1 and V2 rockets and also chemical products and a safe banking system where the Germans could recycle capital and a neutral ground where to discuss with their enemies if they so wanted.

The Swiss were hemmed in by German occupied territory or allies from 1940 until 1945 so they had little choice. Many Swiss Germans were pro German whereas the French-speaking and Italian -speaking Swiss tended to be pro Allies.

No, afaik Sweden has nothing to do with Otto Carius, at all, neither during hes life or death ^^

So tell me correlation of Otto Carius's passing and "The Americans in Irac and afghanistan?" ??

And to be further offtopic, so you compare Swedens involvement in WW2 as a "back seat driver"?

Did you not say... Look at things with neutral eyes, dont take any side and you will see things much cleerer!

Well I did, and all I could see with my neutral eye's was that instead of a country fighting a war, it instead sat on the sidelines and did nothing but supply both sides of the conflict with war materials. As far as "Otto Carius death" this means nothing, but in the long run I suppose, there was a hec of a lot of money to be made. That I could see.

Doing what they did and still stay neutral is an uncomparable feat, made by some excellent and smart people in the government!

Maybe my new eye glasses are not up to par, but what does "Sweden's will to stay neutrality" have to do with "Otto Carius death"??

Yes indeed we strayed off topic !!! But that's what a forum is for: debating ideas and sometimes we wander off the beaten track as we get carried away by personal views and opinions .
That being said I agree with Donken's views that leaders who managed to protect their people from getting involved in futile and destructive wars were wiser than those who led their nations to the abyss...

As for Otto Carius he was very much a man of his time , not a visionary but marked by the atmosphere, prevailing mentality and ideology of a World in convulsion. That does not lessen his accomplishments  as a panzer commander and warrior.