As for Autobahns, they were build for loans that were to be paid with war grabs – that was the plan from the very beginning. The whole economic miracle was made on this.

Indeed we are and I wanted to thank you in previous post for your intelligent comment (unlike certain other user), so I am doing it now.

Yeah, he is omitting a lot. But then again, maybe he (the author)
1)is in some kind of denial about all the war crimes, aggressive German moves, capturing/influencing/ravaging and destroying other countries.
2)just thinks the stuff is above his paygrade, he is a soldier, not politician.
3)or – and this is very probably cause – it would just spoil the book. After all, he isn’t exactly the best writer in the world, so any mention of politics COULD turn this book into something political, which is something he didn’t want to.

Was he omitting ? Yeah, but then again, we are taught how bad Naci Germany was in elementary/high schools, in EVERY WW2 movie or computer game.

That’s the second reason why I don’t mind the omissions as far as they are not propaganda. I don’t mean “holocaust denial” people by this – that’S different. But you see ? We are bombarded from all sides by the notion that Nacis were bad. And yeah, they were. They did few good stuff (let’s be honest – autobahns?), but screwed pretty much everything else, ruined the country (which was already ruined), cost Germany so many millions of lives (and tens of millions in other countries).

____________-

Moving on – I believe that in WW1, Austria-Hungary was the “evil” side with less evil, but still more than allies Germany helping.

Though ask yourself a question. What would you do, if you were “normal” German person during war years ? Could something have been done to prevent the war ? To stop it ? The Naci (I write “c” in case that some search engine would tag it) machine was very cleverly designed (evil design, but still clever) to avoid disruptions.

Germany in 39/40 was winning. And while it’s easy to fall/kneel under peer pressure of 30s, it’s even easier to kneel/fall from peer pressure of actual victories in a war.

Hietler (and others, but let’s make him a scapegoat) played on the feelings of lost WW1, “humiliating” (note the quotation marks) terms of Versailes treaty and very bad economic situation. He promised – and delivered. Though not for some groups of population.

This is known a lot, but if you were back then, would you be able to resist ?

_______________

Whether or not NSDAP were “national” commies is a good question. People’s opinions vary a lot. Weren’t Nacis basically capitalists ? Wasn’t there a lot of nobility, old “blue blood” lines ?

________________

And some kind of strong warning when selling this book would be great – for those already knowledgeable in history. Or “contains only war experience memoirs, no political stuff”.

I like to think that I am quite a history buff and I already know the wider consequences. Or when he gave a date, for example May 14, 1944, I knew roughly how much soldiers/tanks Germany had, or how was the situation on other fronts. Big advantage to see the bigger picture.

But then again, most people getting to this book already know how was it with Germany. It (with biggest probability) won’t be their first experience with WW2 Era.

And as far as the Soviets (“Russians”) go, since when was Stalin noted for a streak of aggressive adventurism?

I agree that he tries to be apolitical but the problem is that (1)he very conveniently omits certain fact and parts of history, presenting only one side, the way that it seems objective and neutral (which influences casual readers, if they aren’t much into history) and (2) he feels resentment that German soldiers were and are “stripped of their glory” – whereas there was no glory for them in this war from the very beginning (unlike ww1, where there wasn’t the “good” side). I doubt his “reasons”, they surely couldn’t have been “good” – it wasn’t that German nation was a victim of some Martian Nazis invasion, or hijacked by one guy who used to have been a bad painter; in fact, they were promised a huge carrot, and said carrot was partially delivered before they lost – before they started to get beaten crap out of them, war enthusiasm was huge and the only thing they were “defending” was the right to grab more and to beat everyone else, to be Ubermeschen.
Regarding Russians – if Germany sat silently and peacefully on their asses five more years instead of starting with CZ, LT and PL, it even might have been true. But, the way it happened, it wasn’t – it’s simply a lie, they had to defend from Commies, because they didn’t manage to beat them. And, you surely know what NSDAP acronym means ;) ? It’s commie with a national flavor added.

I presented you enough historical facts to be arguments. It’s that i’m very sensitive to revisionist approach to history, as it is very dangerous for future generations – and i find some of that there, by “propaganda” i mean this. I value this book for its “field” content (although, there’s not enough of it and very few technicalities) and i caution all readers about the rest (again, if you are not into history, you can easily swallow everything that he wrote.

But your one line comment scream with everything at me “trolling, trolling”.