Historian Reacts - Defense of Poland - Under Siege - Extra History - #2 by Extra Credits

[@RyanPetersonReacts]

Links: Discord: discord.gg/r2WeevN3Ua Twitch: www.twitch.tv/ryanpeteslive Gaming Channel: kzbin.info/door/q93DC9Jrmz_tQY9jakgouA Main Channel: kzbin.info/door/A0d4wih_ecEWiLjy0Ws4Tg

[@strobex3298]

There is a stand alone episode called Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Its technically not part of this series, but continues on. It is an excellent episode.

[@grzegorzgrzesiak7498]

There is an episode on Warsaw Uprising of 1944 but I'm not sure if its part of the series.

[@untruelie2640]

A few years ago, I saw a (german) documentary about the killing groups that followed the german front troops invading Poland. It showed how fast and easily the german soldiers complied with their officer's orders to committ war crimes, executing or deporting Jews, etc. I think that's a point that is often overlooked or not really understood, by both Germans and people in other countries. I think this has to do with terminology. Many people tend to use the terms "Nazi" and "German" interchangeably, which is not correct, since it is an unjust oversimplification. Usually, some people will then point out that "not all Germans were Nazis", that many of them were just normal people or soldiers that tried to survive. This true to a certain extent, but it also plays into the old narrative of the "clean Wehrmacht", which pretends that most Germans did nothing wrong and that all the crimes were commited by a minority of fanatical Nazis - or, in the context of the argument that I mentioned above, that "the Nazis" somehow seduced and corrupted "the german people". But the historical reality was far more complex than that. There weren't two clearly defined groups ("Nazis" and "non-nazi Germans"), the historical reality was far more complex. And claiming that "the Nazis" and "the Germans" were distinctly separate unjustly absolves many Germans of their crimes or at least their support of them, even though it is correct on a certain level (there were Nazis as members of the NSDAP party and those who were not members, but this distinction is too simple and too convenient). However, painting every German at the time as an inhumane evil Arch-Nazi is also wrong. It was a spectrum of opinions and entanglements. Few were completely without guilt and responsibility, and still many people just tried to survive or live their lives. It is messy and complicated, and this doesn't fit our need for clean categories. To give just one personal example, my great-grandfather was not a follower of the particular Nazi ideology, he was in fact a supporter of the communists (he was a poor industrial worker with a rural background). Yet, he still voted for Hitler in 1932, because, as my grandfather put it, "he was a socialist, but a German first". During the war, he was drafted into the army and went to the eastern front. I don't know what he did or experienced there (it is completely possible but not necessary that he commited some war crimes), but when he returned in 1945, he was a different man. In hindsight, he probably suffered from severe PTSD, often flying into violent rages in later life. I don't tell this because I want to envoke sympathy, it's just an example of how complex the situation for most Germans were. One could be a non-Nazi (even being opposed to their ideology) and still commit war crimes, or be a soldier who told himself that he was apolitical and still believed state propaganda. We see this in a similar way with the Russian soldiers and civilians in the current war in Ukraine.

[@andromeda331]

Poor Poland. Good job Roman.

[@iwatchDVDsonXbox360]

Cadorna and Hotzendorf managed to defend their countries for way more time than this competent guys.

[@zabawarozrywka1685]

2:50 are you really historian?