PanzerLeader Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Hey, what about killing not just civilians, but also wounded civilians? March 1943, the 1SS PanzerKorps under Paul "Papa" Hausser recaptures Kharkov thus putting an end to the Soviet Stalingrad counter offensive. Proud of their achievement, some soldiers enter a hospital where they murder some 200 sick or wounded, civilians and Russian soldiers. So that was their reward for taking the damned city once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 This is a pointless debate. People are ignoring everyone elses statements, picking out what they only want to hear, and rebutting the wrong stuff. The way some people are interpreting things, is, stating that since the Allied also did autrocities, it is OK for the Germans to do so. Another misinterpretation is, that the Allied forces are completely innocent of autrocities. NOBODY here has stated what the other side percieves as the truth. Fionn never said that the Germans are excused from their behaviour because of the actions of the allies. All he states is the Allies should be held as accountable as the Germans/SS. What Andreas states, is that one cannot trivialize the autrocities of the Germans purely on the basis that the Allies commited them as well. Both are essentially arguing the same point. It COULD be said that the primary outlook of the SS is to run and execute the concentration camps. It COULD equally be said that the Allied Strategic Airforces had the job of killing off the German civilian population. Neither is entirely true, yet not totally false. It is almost impossible to fight partisans fairly, purely by their nature. It puts the regular civilians, the occupying soldiers, and the partisans themselves in an impossible situation. Brutality becomes extreme at both ends. You cannot tell who your enemy is as an occupying soldier, civilians are in constant fear of retributions by angering either side. By using the Vietnam example, both the Americans and ARVIN destroyed civilian populations under just the rumor of them supporting the VC, and the NVA and VC killed civilians for supposedly supporting the Americans and ARVIN forces. The ONLY people to blame in civilian massacres are the Partisans AND the occupying soldiers, as, take away any one of them and you won't have a massacre. The civilians themselves are NOT to be blamed. Bomber Harris is looked down on by many Canadians, not only for causing the countless deaths of German Civilians, but also causing the majority of Canadian military deaths on pointless raids. Why should 10 000+ Canadians have died dropping bombs on targets that would not speed up the end of the war one bit? There were MANY technological leaps which can pinpoint military and production targets EXTREMELY well by even 1944. Those lives would have been better spent destroying Germany's will to resist, which would have resulted in fewer deaths on both sides. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 03-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Well said Major Tom . ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Just a couple thoughts, which most of you probably don't agree with... I am a pacifist. I believe that all killings are wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I see no difference in the killing of a soldier, a POW, or a civilian. The only possible justification for killing anyone is the prevention of more killings. Should it be deemed that selected atrocity and the killing of women and children would be sufficiently more effective than simply targeting the men, or just the perpetrators of the partisan attacks (and I'm not saying it actually was, I don't know enough to really know) then I'd judge that the least wrong course. -John Hough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Fionn, wholesale destruction of cities and villages by artillery or bombs, and the subsequent killing of everyone in them, is a regrettable consequences of military operations whereas selective killing of the inhabitants is murder. Ain´t war hell!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: I didn't meant to attack you personally Andreas. This whole concept of Germans as post-war masochistic flagellants is getting on my nerves for a long time now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lindan, no sweat, I don't see that as a personl attack. FWIW, I got my history education in Bavaria, where they still had Germany in the borders of 1937 on the maps So I did not feel indoctrinated at all expecially since our teacher skillfully avoided the 3rd Reich and the war. As stated above, I am well aware that all sides committed atrocities, but I think that Oradour was qualitatively different. And nothing said here has convinced me to think of it otherwise. And that to me taints the Waffen SS as an organisation. My job is to do organisational research, and I have come to believe that not only individuals in organisations are responsible for bad things that happen, but that the organisation as a whole can be responsible. Not in the sense that everybody in it ought to be held responsible personally, but that there is something fundamentally wrong with it that needs to be rectified, something that indivduals within the organisation often don't see or are unable to do anything about. And as for self-flagellation, I am not apologising to anyone for what happened in WWII, and I don't feel guilty or responsible about it. I do not think Germany as a whole, or my grand parents' generation, or every single soldier are monsters. I think we have to realise though that Oradour, probably Kursk (thanks SS_Panzerleader), and the death camps were qualitatively different events from what other participants in the war did. And it is important to realise that, because that will prevent it from happening again. Major Tom, thanks for calming the waves. Kurtz, thanks for clearing that up about city fighting, I suspected something like that but was not sure. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn, I know you don't like to be misrepresented, neither do I.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool. I re-read what you wrote and am now willing to state that you do NOT feel it ok to kill POWs LONG after the fighting ends. You ONLY find it acceptable to kill POWs in cold blood a SHORT time after the fighting ends. (and I quote from a previous message.... " things covered by **** happens... Shooting POWs short time after a fire-fight." ) Personally I do NOT find it acceptable to kill POWs at ANY time after a firefight unless one is on a mission behind enemy lines and releasing them would result in one's own inevitable capture and death. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, I do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I expected no other response. However, in time to come if you ever think back on this discussion after reasing a little more you may reconsider. At this present time you won't and that's fine. It takes a long time to change opinions . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't like being called a bigot and prejudiced just because I happen to disagree with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CORRECTION ! I didn't call you prejudiced simply because you didn't agree with me. Many people don't agree with me on many things without being prejudiced BUT I find it quite interesting AND informative that you were able to condemn German actions BUT when presented with equivalent Allied actions rationalised them away. THAT is why I called you prejudiced. So, in the same spirit in which you asked me to clarify I'm asking YOU to clarify and state that I never called you prejudiced just for disagreeing with me. I called you prejudiced because I noted a MARKED discrepancy in the way in which you analysed German and Allied actions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There is also another misrepresentation here, at no point did I mention the Heer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I NEVER said you mentioned the Heer Andreas. I was making a wider point about a group of people (of which you are one). Thus when I mentioned the Heer I was not SPECIFICALLY saying you talked about the Heer (since, in fact you didn't). My exact statement was (and I quote)... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> people like Andreas who condemn the Heer or SS... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I said people LIKE Andreas. I didn't say "I have a serious issue with Andreas who condemned the Heer" I merely said that I had a serious issue with people who shared a similar viewpoint to yours (although obviously not identical).. Remember to READ what the other person writes carefully. At least three times in your previous message you seem to have misread what I said. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On the basis on which you call my reasoning smacking of bigotry, I could say that you idolise the SS. I think that would be wrong, as I don't think you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, but its a great insult to throw isn't it Andreas? Congragulations on getting away with it. FWIW I said I thought you had prejudged the entire issue with your rationalisation and acceptance of ILLEGAL US behaviour when you condemned equivalent German behaviour. At NO point did I condemn one side's behaviour while accepting the other side's equivalent behaviour and making excuses for it. I've been quite clear that what goes for one side goes for ALL sides. If I think it is ok to shoot men of military age in a village near partisans then I think it is OK for Germans, Jews, Russians, Americans, Zulus, Eskimos and British to shoot men in that village. If I think it isn't ok for soldiers to shoot women and children then I say it isn't ok for ANY side. Thus you would have a VERY hard time showing me applying two different criteria to the two sides. I have a VERY easy time showing you applying different criteria to US and German units and because of THIS action on your part I said you were prejudiced. So, in other words, I don't feel you could use the same reasoning to say I idolise the SS since I've constantly only said that context and comparative assesment needs to be incorporated. I've tried to bring a little balance to the discussion... If someone came on here arguing that the Germans were right to burn women to death in Oradour I'd argue JUST AS STRONGLY AGAINST THEM as I do against you since I amn't favouring either side but merely trying to put forward my view that context and comparative assesment lead to a greater understanding of what happened, why it happened and to what extent it happened and should be punished. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But it is very easy to get into name-calling like that. Maybe choose your words a bit more carefully in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or you'll take another cheap shot at me? Feel free Andreas. I understand you're a bit peeved at me but try to remember that I wasn't trying to be insulting to you when I said I felt you were prejudiced on this issue. I was merely trying to present my assesment of your view in words. It isn't terribly wrong to be prejudiced or be told one is prejudiced since IMO being told you are prejudiced in some way is the first step in ridding oneself of that prejudice. We are ALL prejudiced against some things and only by having those prejudices pointed out to us can we gain a more balanced viewpoint. That's my firm belief based on personal experience anyways . I've had some of MY prejudices pointed out to me in years gone by and reacted as you just did. After some time I often came around to discussing them and reading up on the issues and got a much more balanced viewpoint on whatever issue I was previously not so balanced on. Think of this as more of a "call to research" than a " call to arms" . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For the other stuff, I consider the discussion over, as there is no point in continuing it. You have got your opinion, I have got mine. I think you are defending the indefensible, you beg to differ. End of the matter for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pity, I thought I was just beginning to really hit your strong defences. The strong defences are the last to fall and once they fall the human mind is open to learning new information. Of course, at this time in the process some people choose to avoid the next stage in the process of forming a re-evaluated opinion as you are doing. I can respect whatever decision you choose to have with respect to continuing discussion. FWIW I just wish more people were like John Hough. I've got to respect pacifism and pacifists a lot (although I will note that it is good the pacifists have some warmongers around to defend them or they'd simply be pacifist slaves of some tyrant ). Kurtz, Very true . Although I might say "Ain't war crimes just a matter of a tiny distinction?" Last thing... Andreas, Since all the German war crimes mentioned (and note I don't deny they are war crimes) are "quantitatively different" than Allied actions I'd ask for the following. 1. Are there ANY Allied war crimes? If so please name 5 or 6. 2. EXACTLY why are these German war crimes quantitatively different from Allied actions? I think that at a certain point the onus is on you to "prove" your viewpoints. I've tried to prove mine but now am extremely interested to hear the answers to these questions. P.s. Let's try to keep it civil k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Guernica = Dresden Nanking = Hiroshima There are no non-combatants in a total war. You do what you must to win. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Perhaps OT... Speaking of war crimes, in the Final Version of CM1, will players be able to sell loaded Red Ball Express trucks to French Farmers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Have some more opinions coming, but I'll just keep my mouth shut and let this get over with. ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Nanking =/= Hiroshima Even though the atomic bombs were used in a cruel manner (vs. civilians), I don't think it compares to Nanking. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed as they were 'viable' enemy targets, as they were still offering resistance (not open cities). Nanking was an already taken city. The Americans didn't bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the Japanese surrendered either. If they did, then then the two instances would be comparable. Plus, the Atomic bombs were dropped to further the end of the war, Nanking was done out of pure bloodlust well AFTER the city was taken. Morally there is a difference. I won't go into the debate wether or not dropping the bombs was moral or not (just too many conspiracy theories, Japan was ready to surrender, a demonstration would have been just as effective, 2 bombs were overdoing it, bombs were dropped just for Russia's sake, yada, yada, yada...) However, I do agree that Geurnica = Dresden (The small armaments plant and strategic bridge, the only military targets at Geurnica, were virtually the only unharmed structures!) I am on the virtual opposite platform. Just because the other guy does it, doesn't make it right. Both of these instances qualify as disgraceful acts of war. Wars don't have to be total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Alright then Fionn, you did not call my opinion smacking of bigotry and prejudice because I disagree with you, but you did call them that, and at least being called a bigot is an insult in my book. And I think you did call me that because you did not read my posts properly. I did not intend to take a cheap shot at you, because I honestly don't believe that you think the aforementioned, so I am sorry if you do see it that way. All I can say is that if I wanted to insult you, I would do it directly. But I don't want to, why would I? You said 'people like me who do condemn the Heer and the SS', well people like me don't condemn the Heer, because I don't. I have not done so, and unless someone is presenting me with new evidence I won't, so I wonder why you group me with these people. If you had bothered to read the following post to the one you quote on POWs, you would have seen that I realised my mistake in expressing my opinion in the way I did, and corrected it by agreeing with your statement on batte rage or whatever it was. Allied war crimes during WWII, as stated by me before, but here we go again: - Dresden 45 - Worms 45 - Abuse/shooting of POWs in cold blood - rape of German women, looting of civilian property - Nagasaki (maybe) - shooting civilians near death camps (if that has indeed occured, but I'll take your word for it) So that is six of the top of my head. No why are these fundamentally different. Because I only talked abut the army, that negates the air force - I have said so in all my posts. I was making a point that related only to the Waffen SS behaviour in Oradour and the Allied armies in the ETO. None of the above is comparable to a unit of 2nd SS going into a village ten miles from a partisan attack and indiscriminately killing men, women and children on the order of their CO, without this CO facing any consequences afterwards. We are talking cold-blooded mass murder of absolutely innocent civilians here. You have not given an example of anything comparable on the part of the allied armies, and I believe that is because you can not, since there is none. I am not rationalising away equivalent US behaviour, because there was none. And remember that your first reaction to this was that Oradour was a piece of propaganda - can you explain that please? Your examples deal with different issues that have to be judged differently. That is not prejudicing the outcome, only stating that a separate process is needed. So I would say that you are not even coming close to getting into my defences. To me, the act committed in Oradour taints the organisation Waffen SS as a whole. All the acts you describe regarding Allied army behaviour don't, because they are isolated incidents that were not backed from above. Regarding my prejudices, I have them, and I deal with them. That does not make me a bigot though. From Chamber's dictionary: bigotry - blind or excessive zeal in religious, political or racial matters. I am not blind to convincing counterargument, and I don't think I am excessive here. Instead of calling me names, come up with a comparable example and you will convince me. What you have put up so far is not good enough to do that. Or we could just let it rest at this and get on with talking about CM. I have held my opinion on Oradour for a long time, and I find it hard to believe that I will change it in the absence of new evidence. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 D'oh, double post deleted. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All American Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Double post, sorry. [This message has been edited by All American (edited 03-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All American Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 The army is the air force in WWII, or at least for the US military. The US air force was originally the United States Army Air Corps, from 1907 to 1947. [This message has been edited by All American (edited 03-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> bigot is an insult in my book. And I think you did call me that because you did not read my posts properly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well it wasn;t intended as an insult. It was merely descriptive of what I felt was a close-minded attitude which resulted in unfairness. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I can say is that if I wanted to insult you, I would do it directly. But I don't want to, why would I?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, cool. Glad to hear it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You said 'people like me who do condemn the Heer and the SS', well people like me don't condemn the Heer, because I don't. I have not done so, and unless someone is presenting me with new evidence I won't, so I wonder why you group me with these people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, gees, I can't believe we're dealing in the semantics of grammar here.. I actually said "people like Andreas who condemn the heer and/OR SS".. See the OR there? That's crucial. The fact I have the OR in there is the grammatical basis for my assertion that I did NOT say you condemned the Heer. Since I said Heer OR Waffen-SS I did not say everyone I referred to condemned BOTH. I left it open to including people who condemned ONLY the Heer, ONLY the SS or both equally. Is it clear now? You really must take care to read what I say carefully since missing the "OR" there has major implications. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you had bothered to read the following post to the one you quote on POWs, you would have seen that I realised my mistake in expressing my opinion in the way I did, and corrected it by agreeing with your statement on batte rage or whatever it was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh I DID read it but it appeared only after I had left to type up my response. Can't really condemn me for pointing out something which you hadn't retracted at the time I made my post can you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> None of the above is comparable to a unit of 2nd SS going into a village ten miles from a partisan attack and indiscriminately killing men, women and children on the order of their CO, without this CO facing any consequences afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not even the murder of german civilians (don't know if children were included but women certainly were) in villages within a few miles of a deatchamp without ANY of the soldiers involved (including the CO) facing charges afterwards? Is the example I gave above not comparable in your viewpoint? If not, why not. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We are talking cold-blooded mass murder of absolutely innocent civilians here. You have not given an example of anything comparable on the part of the allied armies, and I believe that is because you can not, since there is none.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I didn't know you came from a democratic country I'd begin to wonder about brainwashing at this stage. Do you REALLY believe what you are saying? Have you ever really read Allied veterans accounts? I've read accounts of soldiers who admit shooting male and female civilians in villages near deathcamps. Maybe you've never read them but I still can't understand the surety you have of the "whiteness" of certain sides in war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am not rationalising away equivalent US behaviour, because there was none.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, well that's your opinion... I think that many others here who have probably read more than you would disagree with you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And remember that your first reaction to this was that Oradour was a piece of propaganda - can you explain that please?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. It's a great piece of propaganda since the CONTEXT is usually left out. It is often presented as a village which the SS went into for no reason at all and which they just "felt like" destroying and killing all the civies in it. In reality the context provides a reason for much of what happened there. The killing of women and children was, of course unreasonable. FWIW one definition of propaganda is the presentation of ONLY those facts which further one side's case and, by this definition, any account of Oradour which neglects to mention the CONTEXT can be characterised as propaganda. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Your examples deal with different issues that have to be judged differently. That is not prejudicing the outcome, only stating that a separate process is needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great. Once you explain to me how the killin of civilian German men and women by Allied soldiers who were NEVER charged for their crimes is different to what the 2nd SS did in Oradour then you'll be a lot closer to convincing me that these "situations" were different. Until then I'll continue to think that the ONLY difference is that in one case Allied soldiers did the kiling and in the other it was Waffen SS soldiers. Oh, there's one more difference... when the SS did the killing it is a warcrime but when Allied soldiers do it you see no problem with it. This is the basis of my prejudice comment also BTW. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> because they are isolated incidents that were not backed from above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, what about the NO PRISONERS order given by bradley during the Bulge? Or the similar order given by patton? Can you get ANY HIGHER than a General? Gees, I've mentioned this several times and yet you still seem to not notice it . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am not blind to convincing counterargument, and I don't think I am excessive here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. You do NOT think you are being excessive. I do and hence, by that self-same definition I referred to you as a bigot because I felt excessive zeal was shown. I never expected you to agree with me and have been proven right in that expectation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Instead of calling me names, come up with a comparable example and you will convince me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have tried to do so several times but feel they have been ignored to a great extent. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have held my opinion on Oradour for a long time, and I find it hard to believe that I will change it in the absence of new evidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool. But at the heart of every good debate is the urge to "prove one's points" irrespective of whether or not the other person is swayable. I'm a debater and have debated in contests and represented my school/college etc many times so this is just a nice bit of fun for me. It has been a while since I've debated and so I am quite rusty but I'm rediscovering the old skills as this discussion is progressing. I'm almost at the point now where you're trapped by your own words (the most satisfying of all debating wins )... So, I'm still quite relaxed about this discussion and am glad to see it is remaining civil. Like I said, we don't have to agree but it is interesting to see the other's viewpoint and try 9even if in vain) to change it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: FWIW I just wish more people were like John Hough. I've got to respect pacifism and pacifists a lot (although I will note that it is good the pacifists have some warmongers around to defend them or they'd simply be pacifist slaves of some tyrant ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So do I. Though I do realize that we'll never get everyone to be pacifists, making those warmongers necessary. And it's perhaps easier to be a pacifist when you have the most powerful military around, plus a couple of oceans, keeping you safe from aggressors. In one of his 'alternate histories', chiefly notable for the rather charming widespread use of dirigibles as the primary weapons of war, Michael Moorcock has 'President Ghandi' muster a large, well-equiped, and technologically advanced army, which he secretly forbids from ever firing upon the enemy. I'm at least more of a realist than that. I recognize the regrettable necessity for a truly effective armed forces. But I can at least speak out against the unnecessary uses of our instrumentality of death... -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 All American said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not supporting the killing of civilians by ariel bombing but with the inaccuracey of WW2 bombers, civilan casualties should be expected if the military target is in a heavily populated area. As Fionn says, sh*t happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh? Ariel ps: I read somewhere that the SS soldiers were indoctrinated in being the most "ethics" soldiers in battlefield (the stuff of being arial supermen crusaders), specifically to avoid confrontations with inferior races. The book (a german research, IIRC) states that most of atrocities were committed by rear echelon units of regular army, as the SS was ever in combat. This not clean the SS name from some really bad things. All the nazi Germany was a bit (a bit?) crazy. But, as ever the racial thing comes, attrocities were committed in both sides. Being an asiatic in USA should have been hard in this days. No kill is a good kill. I disagree with Fionn in almost every thing he said about how to treat the "partisan problem". I think I read in the same book the Wermacht law's don't justify the use of criminal solutions to things, so, no trial could be made to soldiers disobeying criminal orders. One example about one german MP who refuses to participate in some "progrom" is cited in that book. Never was judged. If he was in trial, the criminal methods used by all german organizations could be revealed to all the world. They knows they were doing bad things. Sorry by my english and bad memory. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All American Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Oops. Sorry about the typo Ariel. All American ------------------ perviously known as Kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Fionn, a few points: - provide me with sources for the killings of civilians, or better, the texts if you can, I have a look at it and see what I think. - those take-no-prisoners orders. Well, the order might have been there, but they continued to take POWs nevertheless. So it was not carried out to the same degree that 2nd SS carried out its orders. This is a difference when trying to judge the organisation, because it means that the US army gave its lower ranks the freedom of action to decide these matters for themselves AND they used it. Another irrelevant example. To me it boils down to a moral assessment of what 2nd SS did on that day. I think it was of a different order of magnitude than the examples you gave so far (until I have had a look at the sources for the killing of civilians) and you don't. That is really all. An important thing to realise is that in all social science research, and that includes history, we can never know the truth. All the results of research are depending on the framework that the researcher uses to approach the question. So if one thing has become obvious here, it is that your framework is different than mine. It would be nice if you could accept that, without resorting to calling my attitude bigotry or me brain-washed. But if you can not argue without resorting to those insults, so be it. So just to dispell that notion of brainwash, I also believe that Bomber Command is tainted for what it did to Dresden. And the Red Army for allowing the mass rape of German women. As far as calling Oradour propaganda is concerned, I am completely unable to follow your logic. If killing women and children in cold blood is unacceptable under any circumstances, surely it does not matter what context it occured in, because it is still unacceptable. I see some flawed logic on your part there. As far as being trapped by my own words goes - you have delivered unsuitable examples all the way with the possible exception of the killings occuring around death camps. You have used Dresden, Hiroshima, civilians killed in Normandy during the bombardments, shooting POWs and they all are either irrelevant to the point I was making, or they are not as bad. So I am glad we have now narrowed that debate down to the one example that might convince me otherwise. While for you the purpose of the debate is to convince me, to me it is to exchange our points of view, which I think are not that different. If someone changes their view after hearing the arguments, good, but that is not the aim for me. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Two Points: Oradour. I just happened to see a book about this in the Leighton Barracks library this weekend. Most of the discussions I've seen on Oradour focus on the killing of the civilians as a response to the murder of some SS officers and the extent of partisan activity. This book, and I'll have to get back to you all on the title and author, claims there were no partisans at all in Oradour and that they didn't kill anybody that would cause the SS to seek retribution. His claim is that one Frenchman stole a bunch of Nazi gold and that the just rode into town to get it back and that the plan was for the very beginning to just wipe out the whole town. The author was supposedly introduced the the original thief who told him all of this in the early 80's when he was dying. I didn't read the whole book, I just skimmed it, concentrating on the last chapter. Now that this subject has come up I'll give it another look. Wehrmacht Ausstellung and the German habit of self-denigration. AS Germanboy (andreas) posted there has been a special show touring Germany that shows the horrors committed by the Wehrmacht. This show was, as to be expected, politically motivated but has since has been shut down indefinitely because of fraud on the organizers' part. It took a POLISH historian to point out that some of the photographs depicted the Katyn woods incident where polish officers were murdered by the Soviets. Previous German attempts to address this inaccuracy were met with threats of lawsuits, intimidation and labeling those critics as fascists. It just shows the extent of the mindset in Germany that it takes a outsider to set the record straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 Wow what a complete and utter waste of bandwidth. I'm surprised that BTS has left this open this long. This topic was destined to descend to name calling and flaming the minute it was posted. No one who has posted here will have in any way changed anyone else's opinion about the subject being discussed. That said, here's my two cents. There was a time when I always played the German side in any wargame I played because they had the coolest equipment and those cool uniforms. As I got older I read more about the war and just as importantly the prewar and I realized that the Nazi regime was just plain evil. You can argue all you want about specific incidents but you cannot take away the fact that the Germans started the war with the sole purpose of conquering and enslaving other peoples and that both the civilian population and the military supported this course of action. The military did object but only on the basis that they weren't fully prepared not because an invasion of Poland was wrong. The allies were not perfect and they committed the unpardonable sin of winning even though all they had were those uncool looking Sherman tanks, only moderately cool T-34's and boring olive drab uniforms, but I don't know of a single rational person who would have liked to live in a world where the axis won. [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 03-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 My one and only point in this discussion. THERE IS NO CONTEXT WHICH CAN IN ANY CASE WEAKEN OR JUSTIFY THE WARCRIMES COMMITTED BY THE SS IN ORADOUR For all of you who don´t know what happened there and why it was ORADOUR and not Saint-Junien here´s a small quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, the German units stationed in France were placed on high alert. Most of the mobile units, including Das Reich, began a hasty advance to stem the flow of Allied troops beginning to gain a foothold in France. At the same time, the French resistance also went through an increased period of activity in an attempt to delay the advance of the Panzer divisions, in order to allow the Allies to secure their position even further. One such Resistance activity occurred just 10km from Oradour. On June 7, partisans blew up a railway bridge at Saint-Junien in an attempt to slow the movement of the 2nd SS Pz. Division toward the front. Several German soldiers were killed and an officer was taken prisoner in another local Resistance action. Interested in avoiding any large delays, the soldiers of Das Reich ignored St-Junien which was thought to be a large resistance strong hold, and instead diverted their attention to Oradour. Why Oradour was selected is still a mystery. Perhaps it was because the village was so quiet, so inoffensive, and there had been no rumor of partisans there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dreinbol/oradourindex.html I think this makes it pretty clear that the Company which committed the atrocity has had absolutely no reason to choose ORADOUR, except that this village was at the wrong time in front of the way of the wrong SS unit. The atrocity was absolutely unprecedented, except perhaps the MY LAI incident or LIDICE. Rant mode off No insult intended, but some of the comments in this thread have hit my sensible spots. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ [This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 03-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 13, 2000 Share Posted March 13, 2000 OK, I had wanted to shut down this one a while ago, but I lost power and it had to wait until morning Needless to say that arguing about war crimes is really a fruitless exercise. People have their own perceptions and that is understandable. We are talking, largely, about issues of morality. The question of where the line is drawn between justification and not is not a hard one. The Allies tried to draw one with the various war crimes trials held at the end of the war, but pretty much any student of WWII can agree that this line was self serving to the victors. Better than nothing, but faaaaaaaar from perfect and just. So as I always do when this issue comes up and gets hot, time to close it up Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts