Brutality in the Desert

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Look at youtube.

Read a book.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Look at youtube.

Read a book. </font>

[MikeyD]

The "advantage" of the N.A. front was that the area was relatively unpopulated and those living there were not subject to Hitler's racist venom, like the Poles & Jews & Romani, or the notorious trend of Russian revenge rape after having entered German territory, or the American's civilian population center bombing campaigns.

So the only people around the N.A. theatre to experience inhuman conditions and to die brutally were the soldiers themselves. There also might've been a touch more sympathy between the opposing sides too - the mutual enemy of them both - and possibly the biggest killer - was the desert.

[Gpig]

Just finished reading an Army at Dawn. In it, he describes quite a few brutal actions inflicted apon the local populace. Nothing like the other fronts to be sure, but it did occur.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The "advantage" of the N.A. front was that the area was relatively unpopulated and those living there were not subject to Hitler's racist venom, like the Poles & Jews & Romani,

Nazis didn't get to Palestine, but they certainly had lots of contact with arab natinoalists.

[Parker]

This is only partially on topic, but it has some relevance. It's a review of Paul Fussell's new book on the experience of combat in WWII, particularly on its brutality. Anyone read this book?

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2003/09/22/fussell/index_np.html

[John Kettler]

Gpig,

A friend of mine sent me this link, which forms the recently declassified highlights/lowlights of "ex-Nazis" on the CIA payroll after the war. I direct your attention to Walter Rauff, who headed SD units attached to Rommel's Afrika Korps. This was news to me but would seem a likely place to find reprisals emanating from.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2383.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 28, 2007, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Guest Mike]

So Rauff was in the Gehlen organisation.

According to Wiki Gehlen was also a Knight of Malta...it's those bloody Templars again!! :mad:

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

Now deceased DCI William "Bill" Casey was also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

This was news to me but would seem a likely place to find reprisals emanating from.

Ordinary German Wehrmacht units were perfectly capable of committing reprisal crimes without anyone from the SD enticing them to do so. Whether they did or not was primarily due to local command policy. If local command was not into the business of reprisal, the SD in a military area of operations would also not normally be able to conduct them, on a large scale at least. Individual killings of suspected spies/resistance members are a different story.

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

While I take your point, I was commenting primarily on my surprise in learning that SD units were attached to DAK at all, never having heard of this myself.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

I am not sure if there were 'units'. The SD was an intelligence service, controlling party loyalty first and foremost. So I would expect some representatives to be present anywhere the Wehrmacht went.

While the SD was involved in the creation of the Einsatzgruppen, it was not synonymous with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitsdienst

All the best

Andreas

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Now deceased DCI William "Bill" Casey was also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta.

Bloody Templars....told you so!!

[Philippe]

Please. The Knights of St. John may have dropped their high membership standards (more quarterings than most European noblemen knew how to count up to -- for more on this read the first few pages of Voltaire's Candide), but they are most certainly not Templars. Hospitallers, yes, Templars, no.

Among other things, the Hospitallers were quite a bit more evolved when it came to tactics. Templars were really good with money, but really bad at tactics and politics.

[Guest Mike]

That's what they want you to believe!!

[Soddball]

TEMPLARS!!!!!!1!

[The_Enigma]

they the ones with the big red corsses on there nightgowns?

[Aco4bn187inf]

An anecdote-

I saw a TV interview with a British tanker who said that in his experience in the desert, one would not shoot at crews bailing out of stricken tanks. When he fought in Europe, though, he said one would readily try to kill bailing out crews.

A change in the 'rules of the game', it seems.

[DesertMouse]

Originally posted by Aco4bn187inf:

An anecdote-

I saw a TV interview with a British tanker who said that in his experience in the desert, one would not shoot at crews bailing out of stricken tanks. When he fought in Europe, though, he said one would readily try to kill bailing out crews.

A change in the 'rules of the game', it seems.

That was a British tanker. What about the British infantry who had just been machined gunned by the tank?

What about the German infantry who had just been machine gunned by a British tank? You think that they would hesitate not to take at least a pot shot of the crew that had just tried to kill them..?

Hmm. Look, there are no rules, when you are there there is only emotion and opportunity. While I think that the tanker was right in his account, that does not mean that it was somehow romantic. I am sure that a lot of crews were shot and worse even after being captured.

If every veteran came out and said that that never happened, then I would start to believe that it was somehow a "noble" experience. It seems far from noble.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

I am sure that a lot of crews were shot and worse even after being captured.

Then either post evidence that supports this belief, or admit that your opinion is unsupported and therefore worthless.

All the best,

John.

[DesertMouse]

Look, with respect, that really is not a reasonable response John.

You could ask every single veteran alive now if it ever happened, and even if they all said it didn't, it does not mean that it didn't.

On the other hand, if you asked every veteran what their reaction was to mg or tank crew who had just attempted to overrun/machine gun them minutes/seconds earlier, well what do you realistically think the answer is?

[The_Enigma]

ding ding ding ... round two ... we have the home team - the forumites, many of whom are pro/amature historians, avid "fans" of the desert war or well just educated facing off agaisnt the outsider Cousin Pee Pee without a scrap of evidence for his argument which he refuses to believe is in msot cases most likley wrong.

1000-1 odds Pee Pee wins! Any takers?

Look, with respect, that really is not a reasonable response John.

It is a reasonable responce ... try providing some bloody evidence for a change.

Lets look at one of your pervious posts in another topic of yours:

In regards to Monte Cassino

All I can say is, nice one allies. Blow up all of those historical documents - not cool.

Blow up a monastery with no soldiers in there - not cool.

Then allow the Germans to occupy perfect infantry holding environment - better than most urban rubble - not cool

Many Brits, US, Kiwis, Poles, Indians and others dead - not cool.

It's pretty shameful actually.

mouthing off before looking into anything about what happened (sorta like this thread eh?).

Following this you didnt make a post or respond to anyone replies.

[ April 14, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[Other Means]

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Look, with respect, that really is not a reasonable response John.

You could ask every single veteran alive now if it ever happened, and even if they all said it didn't, it does not mean that it didn't.

On the other hand, if you asked every veteran what their reaction was to mg or tank crew who had just attempted to overrun/machine gun them minutes/seconds earlier, well what do you realistically think the answer is?

Think not, prove yes hmmm?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

Look, with respect, that really is not a reasonable response John.

Wrong. Asking for evidence is perfectly reasonable. Elevating your own unsupported supposition to the same level as evidence, as you are doing, is not only not reasionable, it is anti-rational and insane.

Originally posted by CousinPeePee:

You could ask every single veteran alive now if it ever happened, and even if they all said it didn't, it does not mean that it didn't.

On the other hand, if you asked every veteran what their reaction was to mg or tank crew who had just attempted to overrun/machine gun them minutes/seconds earlier, well what do you realistically think the answer is?

Have you actually asked any veterans? Even if you are too lazy to do a shred of research, it's not a good idea to presume to know what other people will think without asking them.

All the best,

John.

[DesertMouse]

I just watched the History Channel documentary about El Alamein.

In the counterattack near Sidi Rezegh in November 1942 by Rommel, the documentary stated that the 5th South African brigade, outgunned, "fought almost to the last man".

Frankly, that sounds pretty tough to me. I don't think that you would have wanted to be there.

As for my question before, if you were a platoon commander who had been relentlessly machine gunned and fired upon by a tank that had just been knocked out, do you think that you would order your troops to suddenly stop shooting as the crew exited their vehicle? Its a simple question.