Asia, Africa, and parts of the former U.S.S.R. and Middle East have been subject to ethnic cleansing, "race wars", you name it after WW2. In many cases these were state programs to boot. Wiki has a good list, Ethnic cleansing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh good gravy! Converting or exterminating indigenous peoples was a universally accepted method of expansion from the 14th to 19th century. During that period the US was not even close to being the worst offender. Do we need to look at the French or British in Africa. The Germans were bad, very bad no amount of rationality is going to change that fact.
And this somehow makes it better? Like I said many times in the past, victims are victims no matter how you slice it. Trying to find some sort of a balance or even worse offender will simply help people sleep at night, nothing more.
That is exactly my point. The German Military just like the Japanese, fought for what in their logic was a just War. The German fighting methods, equipment, leadership (for the most part), and what they accomplished on the battlefield is what I was referring to. Separating the fighting ability of the armed forces from the political treatment of civilians. Like mentioned numerous times before, Russia at the time could give Germany a go for it's rubles in the "Humane" department. Converting, forced assimilation and/or extermination while not accepted today is still a large part of today's World and I believe the cause of most of the conflicts now taking place.
No but nobody is running in circles saying that the East India Company were jolly good fighters and clearly cool. Come to think of it I can think of few who get's more stick than the redcoats/British. From Revolution to Ghandi the films are full of naughty British lads. Frankly the arguements here are much like the one I find at the playground. "He started it.." That the British or anyone else has been guilty of crimes does not exonerate the Wehrmacht from their crimes during the war.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you, but non of the politicians traveled ost. The poor untermensch were dealt with by the armed forces. It was organised by various einzats gruppen, but the vanilla troops took part in the execution of the orders.
No one is denying the Wehrmacht didn't commit atrocities/war crimes, the questions is how many were involved. The S.S. was largely tasked with enacting the ideology and the Wehrmacht with fighting the war, but there were members of the Wehrmacht who certainly had no issues with helping the S.S. when ever they could. Even within the Wehrmacht, many vets you talk to will acknowledge this and have been doing so for quite some time, infact, even before the war ended! What they do take offense to is when they are all tarred in the same as the S.S. for example, some had even gone as far as claiming it was defamation they were all war criminals (from the book Wehrmacht: H,M,R) and I think some even looked into legal action.
Perhaps that is in part because in just about every history of the Waffen SS written either by themselves or by those that greatly admire them the claim is made that the Waffen SS was a military organization rather than a political one. I don't seem to hear much of a counter argument from members of the other branches of the Whermacht.
The Waffen was the military wing of the political party was it not? I don't know if there are any modern day examples of this though. Not sure what you mean by the second bit, as in arguments against the Waffen being a political organization or against the Wehrmacht from being one?