Hehehe...WAFFEN-SS ALL THE WAY, BABY!!

[Howitzer]

Germanboy wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So to give you an idea of where I am coming from, here are some things I think are covered by 'War is war and **** happens':

- Pearl Habour

- Shooting POWs short time after a fire-fight (unless done as official policy and on large scale)

- civilian casualties in besieged cities or during street-fighting

- bombing Kassel/Schweinfurt, other industrial targets

- dumping the atom bomb on Hiroshima

And exampes of what is not:

- carpet bombing Dresden in Feb.45 or Worms in March 45

- Oradour,....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, GB...I wonder if the view on Hiroshima/Dresden is reversed in the islands of Japan?

Steve C.

[This message has been edited by Howitzer (edited 03-11-2000).]

[werfer]

That post by Germanboy about the firebombing of Dresden and the continued indescriminate bombing of both civilian and military targets in Berlin proves once again that the victor writes the rules of "proper" fighting.

Allied flyers on some missions were told to just "unload your bombs at the fires below" with no particular target in mind. Question, is that criminal?. How many civilians were "down below"?, or did it even matter to the ones giving the orders.

The SS in that part were only as quilty as their allied equals, with the only difference being that they saw the faces of the innocents being murdered.

werfer

[werfer]

That post by Germanboy about the firebombing of Dresden and the continued indescriminate bombing of both civilian and military targets in Berlin proves once again that the victor writes the rules of "proper" fighting.

Allied flyers on some missions were told to just "unload your bombs at the fires below" with no particular target in mind. Question, is that criminal?. How many civilians were "down below"?, or did it even matter to the ones giving the orders.

The SS in that part were only as quilty as their allied equals, with the only difference being that they saw the faces of the innocents being murdered.

werfer

[All American]

There was a difference werfer. The Brirish Air Marshall who ordered the bombing of Dresden was shunned out by the British public and the British government. The SS who committed war crimes were applauded by Nazi Germany.

All American

------------------

perviously known as Kid

[werfer]

All American, Is the same true of American people for the indiscriminate bombing of Berlin,Frankfurt or Schwinefurt?, Granted the targets were purely military for schwinefurt but when dozens of planes dropping their bombs at a target a mile apart in formation you could not possibly JUST hit the military target.

Just thoughts.

Thanks

werfer

[werfer]

BTW, whether or not these actions were carried out for military purposes or not. Their were many innocent people killed for no other reason other than living in fairly close location to a military target. Except in the British case, that flying at night if they were hit they would drop their bombs WHEREVER they were and try to return home. (even with the risk of running into their own planes headed towards the same target that they couldn't see in the dark).

As I stated in a previous message a while back. My father was an allied flyer in a B24 that was shot down over Germany in '44 and spent the last 9 months in a German POW camp, being captured by the ss who more or less saved him (and the rest of his crew) from being lynched by the mob that had surrounded them.

Why were these people so enraged?. It couldn't have been the fact that their homes had already been destroyed by indiscriminate bombing could it.?

I am not trying to free the Germans from their war attrocities at all, just to show/post that ALL the allied parties were just as guilty.

Thanks

werfer

[This message has been edited by werfer (edited 03-12-2000).]

[All American]

Werfer, you probably don't understand the inaccuracy of WW2 heavy bombers. Just because civilians were killed doesn't mean they were the target. The point of the huge bombing formations was that the chances of a plane actually hitting their target was pretty low (also defense from enemy planes was the other reason). That was the reason why the formations were so big. These bombings aren't war crimes, they were all bombings of military targets (exception of a unique few, Dresden) in which civialians were unfortunately killed due to the inaccuracey of WW2 heavy bobmers. To just hit the military target on a bombing run with WW2 heavy bombers you would have to be a very lucky bombadier. Not only would the B-17s be 30,000 feet in the air, but the wind, the speed of the plane, and being able to identify the correct target made bombing very dificult. Actually, the bombing of Germany by heavy bombers was so ineffective in a military sense that German production rates actually increased between May 1943 and May 1944. The only thing that heavy ariel bombing really did to help the Allies effort was it forced the Lufwatte to defend the home front, Germany. By doing this, the Allies had complete air superiority in France for the Invasion of Normandy which would of been impossible without it.

Also, why would the British people persecute the Air Marshall who ordered the bombing of Dresden? After all the bombing of London by German planes, V-1s, and V-2s, some of the British people thought that the Germans were finally getting what they deserved, even if they didn't approve of it.

Another thing, how are the Allies just as guilty as Germans? Did the Allies wipe out entire villages for partisan acts in the area? Did the Allies enslave people and force them to build fortifications, weapons, and ammunition? Did the Allies build concetration camps whose so purpose was to kill and experiment with hundreds of thousands of people? To say that the Allies were just as guilty as the Germans is the greatest over exaggeration I have ever heard.

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.

All American

------------------

perviously known as Kid

[Guest PeterNZ]

Well my Grandma tells a different story..

Don't want to cover the various debate bits again, but an annecdote is always interesting

She's german and says that when they knew American planes were overhead, (I guess during the day), they felt ok because the bombs went here, there and everywhere.. but when the British started bombing a town or city they got scared because they knew the english would not stop the bombing until -ever single building- was flatened.

This happened in a town she was in, (she was bombed out of her home three times), there were some half doz buildings left standing, and everyone said "nah, the british won't come back there's nothing left to bomb",... but sure enough that night they did and they flattened the last of the homes and stuff, killing in one case a bunch of people in one house who were sheltering after loosing their homes the night before etc.

This was all near the end of the war i guess, she said it was scary and weird, everyone knew they were loosing but it was just a matter of when. When the yankies finally made it to her area, the town closer to the front lines was asked to surrender, and the nazi mayor refused, so the town was flatened, then theirs was and being a hospital town they did and the Americans rolled in. She said everyone was scared of the black americans because they'd be told black men eat babbies. This fear was soon dispelled for all the kids when they started handing out chocolate hehe.

BTW, she was brought up a Nazi, and still to this day has these deep down thoughts and ideas that are bassically fascist, tho she covers them up well..

PeterNZ

[MG Mannschft]

Oh man my head hurts from reading all of those messages at once...

In Pain,

MG

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Howitzer:

Germanboy wrote:

Gee, GB...I wonder if the view on Hiroshima/Dresden is reversed in the islands of Japan?

Steve C.

[This message has been edited by Howitzer (edited 03-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

I lived in Japan for two years and in Kassel for five, and I can tell you that my opinion on both targets did not necessarily make me popular in either of those places. But I think that the bomb on Hiroshima saved a lot more lives, including civilians, than it took. Dresden and Worms were, shall we say unnecessary, at the time they happened (context ), a year earlier they probably would have been legitimate targets, at least Worms which had already been destroyed in late 44. And Kassel had tank/weapons/locomotive and plane factories in a vincinity of about 500 yards and one mile from the city centre respectively, making it a legitimate target while these were working, at least in my book.

That heavy bombers were inaccurate weapons does not make it right to order these attacks at such a late stage in the war, when it was clear that it was only a question of when and not if Germany would surrender.

Hiroshima (not so sure about Nagasaki) however was intended to show the Japanese that it was over without having to invade,saving the lifes of hundreds of thousands US soldiers and probably millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers in the process. So from a utilitarian point of view, it was okay.

Interesting story PeterNZ, I did not know that the civilian victims discriminated between the US and Bthe British. My grand-mother was bombed out in Jülich in 44, but they lived near the railway yard her father was working in.

AFAIK, Air Marshal Harris is not exactly shunned by everybody here, they put up a statue to commemorate him a few years back.

------------------

Andreas

[Guest MantaRay]

Ummmm, dare I say it, but this whole thread is a waste of time so to speak. And Steve could have been using this time to do "tweaks" to CM and we would have it maybe 45 minutes faster.

Ray

BTW, anyone seen a Tigers game lately??? No SS units, but they could be put on trial for bad play.

------------------

SWAT 3 Page

[Guest PeterNZ]

Yeah, i was a bit surprised that the allies were distinguished so, but i imagine it was fairly easy to do so

firstly, the amis flew at day, the brits at night. Secondly, the amis seemed to miss a lot, or at least, not hit much that they would want to, (my Grandma is aware that the bomber groups would drop a triangle of flares and try and flatten stuff in the triangle). If it was the Yanks, well she'd feel safer than if it was the brits.

As much as anything i feel it was due to the fact that flying during the day would have been pretty harrowing and accuracy wasn't necesarily the highest priority! Whereas night, although maybe no safer, would at least make you feel a bit safer? And hence you'd take more time to be accurate.

But she laughs when telling of the bombing of fields that the Americans would do.. but not so much laughter with the brit stories

In fact, she still has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, my parents weren't thinking a cpl of years back and took her to a Guy Fawkes, (fireworks day you yankies ) and air show.. needless to say the booms and zooming planes at night kinda made her go pale etc ..poor grandma, first half of her life was pretty tough.

O another annecdote, her dad was almost dragged off by a mob and thrown on a train because he wouldn't put a Nazi Shopkeepers Union (??!) sticker on his shop window, so they thought he was jewish, (dark hair).. she turned up and cryed and shouted but they wouldn't believe he was her papa, (she blonde, blue eyed and maybe 10-12).

In the end an uncle in the brown shirts or ss (I can't remember), had to intevene to stop them taking him away!

PeterNZ

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay:

Ummmm, dare I say it, but this whole thread is a waste of time so to speak. And Steve could have been using this time to do "tweaks" to CM and we would have it maybe 45 minutes faster.

Ray

BTW, anyone seen a Tigers game lately??? No SS units, but they could be put on trial for bad play.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ray, if you think it is a waste of time, stop reading it. Yes, it is that simple I think Steve has disappeared from this thread a long time ago, probably to work on CM. Personally I find this threat much more engaging than the question of how CM is going to run on a 1 Ghz system, a (IMHO) useless thread on which Steve has also spend a lot of time. But I am not going into the threat to say that, I simply don't open it.

I agree with Fionn that this is an interesting discussion, and I think there is nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate. I would not be able to say anything about the Tigers, though .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All American wrote: The US army in Vietnam tried being nice to villages and helping them. This didn't stop

these villages from helping the VC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All American,

I think the Vietnam war is a whole different issue - the US simply were not invited and they propped up a corrupt, dictatorial regime that was not well liked by the populace, after getting their politics completely wrong. On the matter of being nice to the Vietnamese villagers, I recommend Neil Sheehan's 'A Bright Shining Lie' Vintage Books; ISBN: 0679724141 - there are some interesting accounts on how the war was conducted. Not unbiased, but well worth reading.

------------------

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-12-2000).]

[Guest Schuggerbaby]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZ:

[b

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...bomber groups would drop a triangle of flares and try and flatten stuff in the triangle).

This reminds me of a story from my teacher at the basic school. She was quite young when the allies start their bombing runs on cologne (7 years or so). She told me that the allied planes threw "Christmas Trees" (Christbäume in german), which where obviously the flares to mark the targets. As naive child of 8 years i told her that it was a nice gesture from the allies to give the germans a Christmas present in form of trees, wasn't a good idea to say that...

[Kurtz]

There was a significant difference between US and UK bombing techniques, at least in the first years of the war; UK Bomber Command mainly bombed residential areas at night in order to break the morale of the German people while the US mainly

did "precision" (well, by WWII standards at least ) bombing of industries during daylight. From what I´ve read Churchill tried to persuade "Bomber" Harris to switch to industrial targets but he was convinced that

his method was the correct one. IIRC, at the Nuremberg Trials, no Germans were accused of bombing civilians in the UK since this could draw the world´s attention to Dresden/Hamburg.

Regarding Hiroshima/Nagasaki:

There was a rising need to show the Soviet that the US had The Bomb, remember that the old friendship between the Allies was fading away in the later stages of the War.

It was also a opportunity to test 2 different kinds of nuclear weapons on real targets (that had not been much bombed earlier). So in the context of a rising cold war it may be explainable. But I´m not convinced by the theories saying that it would have cost millions of lives to invade Japan. According to some sources, the Japanese had tried to open negotiations with the US regarding a Japanese surrender. But to say to the public that you have used nuclear weapons on Japan to scare the Soviets...nah..I dont think that would be a good idea.

What is accepted as the truth changes, archives are declassified, the political need

for a certain view disappears and so forth. A-bombs as the only way to make Japan surrender was the truth during the cold war but is not necessarily the truth today IMHO.

[Fionn]

Firstly I'd like to congragulate everyone involved in this discussion in keeping it very on-topic and not taking it personal as it were . This is a very "charged" topic and it is a credit to the board that we can have such stridently different views yet simply state them strongly without mass condemnations and personal attacks beginning.

Now, with that said, I disagree with a few things mentioned by some who posted after me. Basically I'm going to concentrate on the issue of "context" within this post.

Andreas,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While it surely is the direct fault of the officer who gave the order in Oradour, ask yourself what would have happened if the CO in charge of a US Paratroop unit had given the same order in a German village:

- would the soldiers have carried it out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did at My Lai. I have absolutely NO reason to imagine things would have been different in WW2 if US soldiers had been subject to the same situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - if they did, would he have been removed from his post by his superiors and faced a court-martial? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The situation would have been covered up. Let's put it simply... German POWs were shot. We know that now because of research by good historians. I don't know of a SINGLE case in which a US officer was cashiered for ordering the shooting of POWs or allowing such shooting to occur. Patton was NOT disciplined for publicly urging his troops to shoot surrendering Germans. I would hold that there is ample evidence to suggest that high-ranking members of the US military (including Bradley and Eisenhower) at different times either ordered or gave obvious tacit approval to a "no surrender" policy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would say that in the WWII US army, the answer to both these questions is a yes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think there is ample recorded evidence to prove you wrong.

We all know the recorded cases of the liberation of deathcamps in which US soldiers, disgusted by what they saw, shot all the guards. In some cases it has been reported that US soldiers who liberated these camps also took action against the civies in nearby towns. The excuse for these actions is that the soldiers were under enormous stress due to what they had just seen and NO-ONE WAS EVER CHARGED for shooting the German soldiers or civies.

Do I understand that the soldiers shot the Germans because of the horror of the deathcamps? Yes.

Do I sympathise with the soldiers' motivations? Yes.

Do I think that their action is, in any qualitative way different from that of the 2nd SS at Oradour? No.

In both cases soldiers were confronted by some horrible scenes and took revenge on nearby "enemy" peoples.

So, Germanboy, either you accept that US troops DID commit "atrocities" when put under extreme pressure (such as seeing comrades shot or seeing deathcamps) and were not punished for these atrocities OR you have to argue that when the SS shot some French civilians for "aiding and abetting" guerillas it was an atrocity but when the US shot German soldiers and civilians for being in the vicinity of a death camp it was NOT an atrocity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And this is where the organisation Waffen SS has to face responsibility, for accepting, if not encouraging such actions on the part of its unit commanders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great. Apply the EXACT same standard to EVERY other army in the world and I'll support you. Fail to apply that EXACT same standard to EVERY army in the world and you are being selectivist and unfair to the Waffen-SS (who were not angels by any means).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To say that Oradour wasn't a high-point and that soldiers got carried away is a bit weak for what happened there, I find. It was an atrocious crime, and every soldier involved in it should have been locked up for good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you know what? I think that the Allied shootings of German soldiers in the vicinity of deathcamps simply because Allied troops were "angered" by what they saw is an example of Allied troops getting "carried away". Presumably you find my condemnation of the conduct of Allied troops "weak" and feel that what they did was an

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> atrocious crime, and every soldier involved in it should have been locked up for good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>?

I'm not arguing for any side over the other. I am simply arguing for fair interpretation of what EVERY side did. When one applies different criteria to ANY side in a conflict one is being unfair. One should judge all sides with the same criteria in mind and an openness to new information which contradicts comfortable, conventionally accepted belief.

Later on you stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But the organisation Waffen SS allowed things to happen that were unthinkable and unheard of in the US and British, and even the Canadian armies of WWII. Again, killing POWs does not count in my book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. I'm going to make a friendly suggestion that you read up on what the US, British and Canadian armies got up to during WW2. Do a search for information regarding Canadian tank crews in Holland at the end of 1944. There are undenied reports of them lashing German POWs to tanks and driving into battle with the POWs on the tanks. You think this is OK do you? ( I could cite similar examples for US and UK troops if I wished.)

Basically I think that what you think of as being unthinkable and unheard of in US, UK and Canadian armies was not only thinkable and heard of but often was ignored and/or encouraged by higher level officers.

I'm not out to condemn any of these Allied armies. I just think that you may not be fully aware of the all-encompassing nature of the abuse of prisoners.

BTW your point regarding the "shooting of POWs is ok". As far as I'm concerned the shooting of POWs is NOT ok and the shooting of POWs is one of the few things which all nations agree is a warcrime. I think you're very much cherry-picking your war-crimes and examples.. Be worried if you ever go to war because, judging by your posts I'd probably be allowed get away with my clearing of villages (since I'd preferentially target men of military age) but YOU would almost certainly be shot or hung for the execution of POWs. . Interesting change in perspective isn't it?

FWIW I do NOT think the shooting of POWs is ok except in some very specific and rare circumstances ( I think it is allowed to shoot POWs if one is on operations behind enemy lines and the release of POWs would endanger one's mission.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't think we will agree on the issue, but I would appreciate if you could see that one can have a different opinion on the matter even AFTER taking context into consideration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Sure you can have a different opinion on the matter. I would point out however that you do seem to have a very "favourable" (and some might say unrealistic) view of exactly how Allied armies conducted themselves. I can't help but think that if you knew more of some of THEIR atrocities you wouldn't be so quick to single out the Waffen-SS.

Context is important but so is COMPARATIVE BEHAVIOUR . Comparing the Waffen-SS to other armies is important in establishing benchmarks etc and most illuminating . You mightn't agree with me now but just have a think about it in the future when reading mil history ok Andreas?

FWIW I agree with your **** happens list EXCEPT where it mentions the shooting of POWs. If a man under my command shot a POW while in battle rage or something with a similar "altered state" I might make an exception and not have him disciplined but I wouldn't have much mercy with a soldier who would just shoot POWs because "they were German" or something stupid like that.

Gary T,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just exactly how are the innocent villagers meant to stop the partisans form operating? Would the British Army in Northern Ireland be justified in going into every Catholic home and shooting dead on the streets every Catholic male, guilty or otherwise? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, France had surrendered. Germany was now the government in being in those parts of France and so ANY witholding of information regarding partisan activities was tantamount to treason. That the civies were in an unenviable situation isn't the point here. The point is that, by law, they should have reported partisan activities and failure to do so makes them guilty of "treason", a crime punishable by death.

If I had been around during that time I would have fought in a resistance and I wouldn't have found it unfair if the enemy had retaliated by destroying villages which tacitly supported the activities of my and other resistance cells.

FWIW I think you might find it argued that at many times the British Army DID shoot dead Catholic males in Northern Ireland on the thinnest of pretexts and virtually no-one was ever brought up on charges for this. Also I can point to the current Bloody Sunday cover-up in which rifles used to kill unarmed civilians were purposefully destroyed by the British Army once an investigation was, belatedly, launched.

For the record if I had been in command of the British Army in the North I would have admitted a shoot on sight policy and definitely enacted internment etc etc.. In other words I don't have a problem with tough measures being taken but do have a problem when an army enacts tough measures but tries to cover up what it is doing and appear all innocent.

I think your end comment that a more "ruthless" mindset existed in some officer's minds might be key here. An officer who is determined to win at "all costs" won't balk from extreme measures. I don't want to get into whether this was NSDAP indoctrination or not but will note that "elite" formations from all sides are more likely to be ruthless in combat and to anyone and anything in their way. The Waffen-SS were an elite organisation and seem to have been inculcated with something of a desire to win at all costs.

Sos,

Sure thing. I can understand why you are sensitive to this issue. I'm VERY sensitive to armies which shoot civies and then cover it up since I'm Irish so understand where you're coming from.

When I call Oradour a "great piece of propaganda" it is purely because I see it mentioned time and again but hardly ever do I find the butchering of German soldiers from Das Reich earlier that morning mentioned. CONTEXT is extremely important. I term it propaganda because a biased view of it is always presented to the public. I do NOT agree with what the SS did there but it is not as though they did what they did for no reason. There was a reason for the rounding up of men etc.. The burning of women and killing of kids was going too far of course.

As for Katyn... It is elementary... Privates and Sergeants are followers. Officers are trained to lead. If you shoot all the officers (whose loyalty you can't be certain of) you can appoint reliable officers to lead the conditioned followers ( remember the large number of Poles who fought for the Soviets? ).

The officers who were shot were, almost certainly, largely opposed to Communism ( many were land-owners etc) and, if they had the loyalty of their men, could have formed a nucleus of resistance to communist ideals.

The Soviet decision IMO was to kill roughly 10,000 leaders and opinion formers so as to ensure the blind obedience of hundreds of thousands of lower ranks.

Kill the leaders and intelligentsia and re-educate the masses . It is quite a basic revolutionary ploy actually.

Schuggerbaby,

The fact that the civilians were in a terrible situation vs the choice between treason and collaboration is not the issue here. The issue is that they did not report partisan activity and thus became "accomplices" and thus rendered themselves a viable target by their inaction. It isn't a nice thing to say but it is pretty much the truth as I see it.

Ps. Recently a STATUE was erected by the British Government to Bomber Harris. If having a statue dedicated to you by your government is "shunning" then I mustn't understand shunning very well.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Fionn,

I'm 75% Irish!

Okay, no more replies. Farewell to arms on this topic.

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Fionn:

Firstly I'd like to congragulate everyone involved in this discussion in keeping it very on-topic and not taking it personal as it were . This is a very "charged" topic and it is a credit to the board that we can have such stridently different views yet simply state them strongly without mass condemnations and personal attacks beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn,

I find your repeated LOL after my quotes just shows the opposite of what you say here. I do not laugh at your arguments but take them seriously. I think it would behove you to do the same if you are really interested in a serious debate. If your real goal is to show others how stupid you think I am, of course you can continue to laugh.

Having said that:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Andreas,

Well, France had surrendered. Germany was now the government in being in those parts of France and so ANY witholding of information regarding partisan activities was tantamount to treason. That the civies were in an unenviable situation isn't the point here. The point is that, by law, they should have reported partisan activities and failure to do so makes them guilty of "treason", a crime punishable by death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, the events leading to Oradour took place about ten miles from the village. How could the villagers have reported it? And again, women and children as well, and men without trial? I don't think so. There is no way on earth you can convince me that Oradour was acceptable behaviour.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> FWIW I agree with your **** happens list EXCEPT where it mentions the shooting of POWs. If a man under my command shot a POW while in battle rage or something with a similar "altered state" I might make an exception and not have him disciplined but I wouldn't have much mercy with a soldier who would just shoot POWs because "they were German" or something stupid like that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely, that is what I meant by a short time after a firefight, sorry for not making that more clear. Shooting POWs b/c you can not be bothered to take them to the rear is not acceptable, shooting the guy who 10 seconds ago killed your best mate and now wants to surrender is a different matter. Soldiers had weird standards for these things, I remember a quote by a British sergeant on city fighting: "There weren't many prisoners, if they did not surrender before we started on a house, they never got a chance afterwards." Not being familiar with the intricacies of city fighting, I would think this is not acceptable.

Again, I think there is a huge qualitative difference between the treatment of POWs and civilians, so I do not understand why you come back to this time and again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

They did at My Lai. I have absolutely NO reason to imagine things would have been different in WW2 if US soldiers had been subject to the same situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, I have. I said explicitly in the WWII army. Fact is, they did not do it then. Vietnam is qualitatively different because of issues of race, and a lack of professionalism in the US army that fought the war. They also lost it, which might explain a lot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We all know the recorded cases of the liberation of deathcamps in which US soldiers, disgusted by what they saw, shot all the guards. In some cases it has been reported that US soldiers who liberated these camps also took action against the civies in nearby towns.

Do I think that their action is, in any qualitative way different from that of the 2nd SS at Oradour? No. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now the death camps. I do think these are different events. Very different. We are talking about a situation where it was clear that you were looking at the perpetrators of the crimes, in the case of the guards, and the civies, well I have never heard of this, so I guess it was not too common, but I might be wrong. Did they shoot women and children too? I think there is a qualitative difference because the stress levels must have been different between the US soldiers and the 2nd SS. We both weren't there and we are not psychologists, so your guess is as good as mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Basically I think that what you think of as being unthinkable and unheard of in US, UK and Canadian armies was not only thinkable and heard of but often was ignored and/or encouraged by higher level officers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me of a single case where either of these armies wiped out the whole population of a village including men, women and children who had not attacked them during WWII and I will agree with you. Until you do so I would argue that your desire to be fair to the Waffen SS is in fact unfair to these armies.

BTW, I think the Harris statue was put up by the Bomber Command veterans, not the government, but it was sort of tacitly supported by it. Might be wrong on this one though.

------------------

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-12-2000).]

[Gary T]

Fionn,

I know the British Army during the early part of the troubles in N. Ireland behaved as you say. I have seen private photos from members of 1 Para of prisoners being 'interrogated'. However, the differnce between internment and shoot-to-kill policies as you describe them and what you said in your original post is immense. Internment and shoot-to-kill (which I don't recognise as being effective tactics BTW) was aimed at suspected terrorists. What you were suggesting was the eradication of the male population suspected or otherwise.

Interestingly the massacre at Ascq I mentioned was followed up by a Gestapo investigation (into the sabotage). And guess what? They successfully apprehended the 8 members of the resistance responsible. All the summary shooting of 86 innocent individuals by HJ did was probably to double the local recruitment figures of the Resistance.

Also you stae the villagers were guilty of not reporting partisan activity. What makes you so sure they knew anything of any value anyway? I'm pretty sure the vast majority had NO connections or knowledge of the local resistance. There is NO justification whatsoever of what happened at Oradour despite the excuses you make. If all villagers are held responsible for the actions of others then surely all members of the W-SS should be held responsible for the actions of their organisation. And no I don't believe that should be so.

Yes, you are right about the 'elite' units being more brutal. There are certain units (British) I deal with on a daily basis who I believe are would be far more prone to committing war crimes than others. One only has to look at the 'elite' Canadian/Belgian/Italian forces behaviour in Somalia to see that. And they were part of the UN for God's sake!

Anyway, good dicussion and as Sos says time to end it from my perspective.

Cheers,

Gary.

[All American]

I just wanted to say that Air Marshall Harris was shunned by the British government and public until more recently. He never recived any acknowledgement of all the good things he did to help the British effort. He was shunned out by the government and the public while he was alive.

All American

------------------

perviously known as Kid

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary T:

Anyway, good dicussion and as Sos says time to end it from my perspective.

Cheers,

Gary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post Gary, and I agree with you and Sosasomething that all has probably been said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kurtz wrote:

What is accepted as the truth changes, archives are declassified, the political need for a certain view disappears and so forth. A-bombs as the only way to make Japan surrender was the truth during the cold war but is not necessarily the truth today IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurtz,

very interesting, I did not knoww of any new information, but I have not been looking either. I'd happily amend the statement above in the light of new info, although I enjoyed my role as the party-pooper in Japan very much

Good debate alround everybody, I agree with Fionn that it is a credit to this board.

------------------

Andreas

[Fionn]

Germanboy,

I said LOL after TWO quotes out of about 5 or 6 quotes.One LOL was after quoting a statement which said basically "our opinions can differ can't they?". Hardly an insult Andreas.

The next time I said LOL was when you said "Again, killing POWs does not count in my book." I found it quite funny that someone who was berating me over some of what I would do finds it 100% acceptable to kill prisoners long after they have surrendered. There IS a certain amount of irony inherent in your taking issue with my "legal" but grey measures and your acceptance of the totally illegal murder of POWs.

Again, at no time was I poking fun at you I merely found it amusing and ironic that you could profess shame at the conduct of German soldiers but could turn around and say that there is nothing wrong with shooting POWs. Don't you see the amusing duality there?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There is no way on earth you can convince me that Oradour was acceptable behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah and that's the key... You aren't willing to be convinced . Firstly I did NOT say that Oradour was acceptable behaviour. The targetting of men of military age was acceptable, the rest wasn't.

As for what the civies were supposed to do they should have reported partisan activity BEFORE the ambush since partisans would have been around for months before. Partisans don't just spring up out of the ground you know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think there is a qualitative difference because the stress levels must have been different between the US soldiers and the 2nd SS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so stress levels MUST have been different and therefore US actions were ok but German actions weren't. *Sigh* you don't see this as being a little bit unfair and biased do you?

I'm quite sure now that with any example I choose you'll simply tell me that US actions were under different circumstances (no matter how small the difference) and that thus they were ok.

So, it is good to know that in your opinion it IS ok to shoot men in nearby villages when one uncovers a death camp even though there is NO proof that any of these locals ever worked in or even visited the deathcamps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tell me of a single case where either of these armies wiped out the whole population of a village including men, women and children who had not attacked them during WWII and I will agree with you. Until you do so I would argue that your desire to be fair to the Waffen SS is in fact unfair to these armies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, firebombings of Tokyo, several small French villages around the invasion beaches .

Ok, are you now going to agree with me?

Gary,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What you were suggesting was the eradication of the male population suspected or otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, obviously I'd prefer to conduct a proper investigation and catch only those responsible. Personally I think the killing of villagers in reprisals is a very poor way of dealing with the problem and that a good investigative process and good civilian-military relations is a better way of dealing with a possible partisan problem.. You catch more bees with honey would be my viewpoint I guess.

Your example of ascq is something I'd wholeheartedly believe... I think sending in the Gestapo was a better way of dealing with the situation than simply shooting a random sampling of the population (not much better for those who committed the act of sabotage though ).

As for the villagers knowing about partisan activities.. Probably most didn't.. However, as you probably know the rules of war don't make such distinctions.. All they say is that anyone suspected of harbouring or NOT INFORMING on partisans is fair game. Since these villagers were suspected of covering up for partisans they thus became fair game. It's a simple precedent really.

Again, I don't say what happened at Oradour was acceptable.. The killing of women and children wasn't acceptable. The wholesale killing of the men was short-sighted and stupid also (although probably legal if you stretch the rules of war a little).

I DO have a serious issue with people like Andreas who condemn the Heer or SS for killing civies and then try to provide justification and excuses when the Allies do the same. I think that smacks of bigotry and outright prejudice (and no I don't think those words are too strong).

If it isn't ok for the Heer to kill women and children then HOW can these people argue it is ok when the US does the same? It beggars my belief.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

I found it quite funny that someone who was berating me over some of what I would do finds it 100% acceptable to kill prisoners long after they have surrendered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn, I know you don't like to be misrepresented, neither do I. I never said this anywhere. Please go back to my posts and re-read them and then either amend your statement or just make otherwise clear that I never said this. Thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I DO have a serious issue with people like Andreas who condemn the Heer or SS for killing civies and then try to provide justification and excuses when the Allies do the same. I think that smacks of bigotry and outright prejudice (and no I don't think those words are too strong).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I do. I don't like being called a bigot and prejudiced just because I happen to disagree with you. There is also another misrepresentation here, at no point did I mention the Heer, and I think I made quite clear at all times that I do not think the Allies where all good and pure.

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. But it is very easy to get into name-calling like that. Maybe choose your words a bit more carefully in the future.

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. I still learned from it, so it has been worthwhile for me.

------------------

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-12-2000).]

[Kurtz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

...if they did not surrender before we started on a house, they never got a chance afterwards." Not being familiar with the intricacies of city fighting, I would think this is not acceptable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fighting in urban areas don´t give you much time to consider if you should take POW:s or not, if you are to clear a building you just continue throwing grenades and shooting at everything that even looks suspicious until the entire building is secured.

I don´t think this is a moral problem, it´s like if the enemy surrenders while your artillery grenades are still on their way, there is not much to do about it. And there is a strong possibility that you won´t even see if the enemy tries to surrender because of the smoke and dust created by the combat.

(After having breached a wall, thrown a grenade inside and done a bit of shooting,

visibility is close to zero).

**** happens...

[Lindan]

Germanboy:

I don't want to quote a lot or add one more long post to this topic, but...

since CM I read a lot of books describing the troops of the Western Allies. There were many atrocities on ALL sides, in all shades. Lots of them. And I'm with Fionn here that similar deeds have to be judged in a similar way. And frankly said, I could smash my head into my monitor if I have to read this whole stupid: "but we Germans were so much worse/agressive/bloodthirsty/morally inferior than the Allies" - stuff in this forum, only because it was indoctrinated into us over the last decades (yes, I'm talking everyday education and political correctness here). It stinks. There is no difference. When some soldiers commit an atrocity it doesn't matter for me if their uniforms are black, grey, green, khaki or yellow with pink stripes. It's just an atrocity. Like many here wrote before me, the victor writes the stories.

<hr>

But enough of this. 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.

[This message has been edited by Lindan (edited 03-12-2000).]