Honour in Combat, Mk IIa

[-E]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

Ione german luftwaffe officer who was hung in the balkens ... but at the same time was done for other crimes.

I ask this following question not to be a smartass but out of intrest, what was Goring sentanced for exacttly since he was the head of the luftwaffe?

Wiki helps out a bit, however Goering never hung. He committed suicide using a cyanide ampule via the help of an American guard. Goering had smuggled the ampule into his second prison within his personal effects (other were found by following his suicide note). He pulled this off hours before the "unannounced" hangings were to take place. The hangings were really botched and gruesome... if memory serves, it took over 20 minutes for Keitel to die at the end of the rope. Just about as long for several others. The most famous of those not to die, yet to be found guilty was Albert Speer... who spent 20 years in the jail (almost all others were pardoned in the early 50's excepting notable Rudolph Hess and Speer) and used his outside time to "walk" around the world. He had figured out the size of the excercise area and computed how many miles he walked per week, while following along with maps etc, He would also research each area he was "visiting" using books.

Speer's book was very interesting, although it's been a great many years since reading, so take that info with a grain of old salt. Georing's info was more recent in a book I really couldn't recommend to any but the very hard core.

[Krautman]

[ March 18, 2006, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[John Kettler]

Wakinyan,

Just in case you think that the Brown Brothers Harriman, not allowed to be bombed factories and CFR stuff are flukes, I suggest you read what a former Marine general had to say about engineered war shortly before WW 2 "broke out." It's my understanding that exposes like his are the reason that we had official histories in WW 2--

specifically to avoid embarrassing revelations of obscene war profits.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 21, 2006, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Here's a good one for your paper. A 71 year old British admiral is captured after close combat (emptied his pistol) at Mechili, only to be released by the Italians on the humanitarian grounds "he's too old to fight." Wrong! Upon release, he joins the Commandos, winning a Bar to his DSO 46 years after the first award!

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/002279.html

He's also mentioned in the Alamein Meeting at Larkhill link in the 6 pdr. thread by Locksley.

Recommend you find a copy of MEN FIGHTING: Battle Stories, John North, Editor. A collection of cited excerpts from various first person accounts of battle going back to WW 1, each forming a chapter, it's full of great anecdotes, many of which are pertinent to your paper. Page 131, for example, tells of how a German officer, in a captured British AC, popped up out of the turret and courteously waved an entire motor column into captivity. Since the Germans didn't have the manpower to handle all the prisoners, they simply took the officers and the lorries, having set free the NCOs and other ranks--after disarming them. There's a specific comment about

the civilized way the Germans treat their prisoners, together with an invidious one regarding the Italians.

On p. 125 a Commando in the Dieppe raid after silencing a German battery is offered a drink by a Frenchman, but being pressed for time, declines, meanwhile apologizing for damage to the Frenchman's garden caused by the combat.

Page 154 finds us in Anzio where a British soldier puts considerable energy and effort into helping

bandage a German soldier whose eye is half out of its socket. Page 155 finds the same soldiers, having narrowly escaped burning to death when German shellfire set dried brush alight, showing mercy to two German soldiers they could just as easily have shot, capturing them instead.

Many more doubtless await in this feast of grog goodness!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Found a few more. Same source as before.

Page 174. Cow badly wounded by shellfire is humanely shot to put it out of its misery.

Page 188. Reports of SS wearing British uniform, this atop prior and familiar reports of their boobytrapping their dead and also painting themselves to resemble corpses, corpses which rose and slew after a unit passed through.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wakinyan]

@John Kettler

I won't argue with you, and will not reply to this thread anymore, but since I may have insulted you, I find that you deserve an explanation.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Since this is my first encounter with you, welcome aboard!

Thank you.

You said you've spent a couple of evenings reading this thread. Would that be the complete thread or just the MkIIa portion?

The whole thread. Wouldn't take me a couple of evenings to read a couple of pages.

On what basis, praytell, do you conclude that I "live partly in a fantasy world,"

It was mainly when I read your post of the 14th of March that my growing suspicion that this guy is bull****ting us transformed into a conviction.

I see nothing but nightmares!

That's what I thought.

All the best,

/W

[John Kettler]

Wakinyan (who won't reply),

Some people have very little time available to be on the Forums, so it was reasonable to ask. I agree, though, that the time increment does make more sense if you waded through the huge thread.

Regarding my purported "fantasy world" connection, I fail to see how my post of 14 March (Catholic moral dogma on targeting civilians and moral issues regarding nuclear warfare) falls under that rubric. Best guess is that you wrote the wrong date. And, no, I'm not dispensing recycled taurus

meals!

Finally, I deem it dirty pool to so blatantly take

a remark of mine out of context as you did in the last part of your reply. What I was saying is that the kinds of things I was describing weren't fantasies but nightmares, unfortunately, ones based solidly in reality. Despite clever text selection, that's NOT the same as saying I see everything as a nightmare. There are plenty of good people, mostly unsung, working on behalf of all sorts of worthwhile causes and doing all sorts

of wonderful things.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Here is a DVD (part of much larger set available from the main site) whose contents provide, IMO,

valuable context for the radically different nature

of the PTO vs. the ETO. Not only did the Japanese, according to the standard model, attack us first, engendering a nation enraged, but it was a race war--on both sides, as noted by numerous historians, starting with, I believe, Spector and his EAGLE AGAINST THE SUN. If you can manage to watch the right WW II Bugs Bunny cartoons, you'll see exactly what I mean, with the Japanese soldier depicted as stupid, practically blind (thick glasses) and bucktoothed. The Japanese view of their foes was even worse. This helps explain the incredible brutality of the combat there, with both sides hating each other and neither side really oriented toward or desirous of granting quarter. Each perceived the other as being subhuman.

http://www.discoveryvip.com/training/Documentary%20History/History%20of%20World%20War%20II%20The%20Japanese%20Paranoia.php

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 26, 2006, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Tagwyn]

What would you do with "terrorists," John? Give them a cig and then kill them one limb at a time? Or allow them to stay in UK and give them acces to the dole? Jingles, you are wasting your time. Your idea of war as a humanitarian exercise in any way is ludicrous. I have no problems with killing my country's and my enemies until they surrender.

[painfbat]

= = = I have no problems with killing my country's and my enemies until they surrender.= = =

Should they surrender before or after you killed them??

Oops, since you still don't know the difference between a German and a Nazi, I'll guess I know the answer.

Cheers

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

The History Channel last night ran a most interesting program called "Sink The Tirpitz" during which I learned of a truly remarkable example of honor in combat. An X-craft raid was compromised at the target via collision, and the crew had to abandon ship after laying the side cargoes (huge timebombs) beneath the Tirpitz, which had no steam up, had the radars off, and was in the middle of a big maintenance project. The captured submariners, in an effort to save the lives of those aboard, informed the Germans of what would happen within the hour, figuring that since there was no way to get underway in that time starting with cold boilers, the Germans would evacuate the ship to save the men. Instead, they pulled out all the stops and managed tiny movement by the time the charges detonated. Despite not being directly above the charges when they went off, Tirpitz crew casualties were considerable, with men being launched headlong into the armored overheads. Also, ISTR the Italian Miaile (sp?) frogmen who sank the British battleship in Alexandria issued a similar warning.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

It's 7:48 a.m. PDT here, and the History Channel is running what appears to be a Battle of Britain themed program called Spitfire Ace Dogfight. Just tuned in, but so far, I've seen an interview in which a former R.A.F. fighter pilot shot up a German plane to the point it had to ditch (engine stopped, chunks torn out of the cowling). He went on to note that the man he elected not to kill was rescued, returned in subsequent fights, and got several more kills. The former pilot didn't regret his merciful act, but ruefully conceded that from a practical standpoint, he should've finished the German off.

Lady Joan Foxley-Norris described seeing a British pilot shot up in his parachute. There followed additional discussion of the fact that both sides were reported as doing this, with the Polish squadron being downright notorious for killing Germans whenever and wherever found. As one commentator put it, while most hunted planes, the Poles hunted men. This was directly attributed to what the Germans did to Poland, the Polish squadron's approach being summed up neatly as "they were fighting another war."

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 10, 2006, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[painfbat]

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1354521#poststop

Linky for John K.

Cheers

[Andreas]

Debunking of Bacque's nonsense for painfbat.

From the AHF

I feel like an old alcoholic who has fervently sworn off the bottle but can't resist taking one more drink!

But let me take one more try, making it as simple as I can.

1. James Bacque in his Other Losses (1991 revised edition, Pima Press) asserts that the German POWs, held in US prison camps in Europe, were:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />....exposed to conditions that killed them at the rate of over 30% per year.

p. 65

2. The sole source proffered for this assertion is Bacque's Appendix 2.

3. Appendix 2 contains facsimiles of two Tables, IX and X, taken from the typed manuscript of "Medical History, European Theater of Operations" to be found in the National Archives. I have no question but that the Tables are authentic. They are based on a survey by the U.S. Army Medical Corps in the European Theater in may-June 1945.

4. As indicated in my prior post, the caption to Table IX states that it is a comparison of (a) the number of [hospital] admissions and ( death rates per 1000 per annum for POWs in the ASCZ, with ETO (less UK) Troops [ie essentially US Troops]. Table X is a listing by causes and number of deaths of the "Chief Causes of Death Due to Disease in ABSZ Prisoner of War Enclosure For Six Week Period Ending 15 June 1945".

5.Table IX shows a number of 2,754 POW deaths from disease and a 34.2 death rate per 1000. In light of Table IX's caption, one would think that the 34.2 death rate per 1000 was a per annum rate. The caption says so.

[Forum member], however, disputes this and insists that the stated rate was only for the 6 weeks reviewed, which, if true, would elevate the annual death rate to 296.5 per 1000, or 29.65%. ( 52/6 = 8.67 x34.2 = 296.5) BUT:

(a) Bracque himself states that the rates per 1000 shown in Table IX are annual and not 6 week rates:

.....the rate per thousand for hospital admissions for injuries was 468 per year.

[my emphasis]Appendix 2, p.211.

( If the rates shown are on a 6 week basis, then, for example, the POW rate of 5,003 per 1000 for total hospital admissions would be 43,376 per 1000 per annum (52/6 = 8.67 x 5,003 = 43,376), or 43+ admissions for each POW per year, or about 1 every 8-9 days!!! That stikes me as far beyond the stretch of credibility.

© Equally incredible would be the resulting death rate for US Troops. If the 3.8 death rate per 1000 shown for US troops excluding battle casualties were computed on a 6 weeks basis, then the total US death rate per annum would be 32.95 per 1000 per annum, or 3.3% - many times higher than the comparable figures supplied in one of David thompson's previous posts.

(d) In my own albeit limited [iv'e only been around 75 years] experience, unless specifically otherwise indicated, "rates" when quoted are generally understood to be per annum rates. E.G. "I got a 6% interest rate on my mortgage!"

(e) Conclusion: [Forum Member]'s old dog still just wont hunt.

6. One would also think from looking at Table IX that the number of hospital admissions and deaths shown are those which actually took place during the 6 week period in question. That seems to me the fair implication of its caption and the arrangement of of the table that follows. But this would demolish Bacque's assertion of an over 30% POW death rate and so he argues that no, the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths shown are not the numbers actually experienced during the 6 week period, but rather those 6 week numbers projected forward throughout the year. So that, for example, the number of 37,713 POW hospital admissions for injuries shown on Table IX are the projected admissions which would occur for the entire year if one were to apply the shown rate of 468 per thousand per annum to the population of POWs surveyed.

7. By cobbeling up that theory, Bacque can play mathmetical mumbo-jumbo and produce a POW death rate of over 30%. Here's how: Bacque first purports to compute the number of POWs in the study by taking his 37,713 assumed hospital admissions per year and dividing that number by the 468 per thousand annual rate stated in Table IX. This results in a computed POW study population of 80,583. Well OK, but so what? If you consider the 2,868 total number of POW deaths shown on Table IX as a projection for the total deaths for the entire year, then if the population of the study is 80,563 the annual death rate is only 3.56% (2,868/ 80,563 = 0.0356, or 35.6 per 1000, as shown on Table IX.)

8. Ah, but wait! Although according to Bacque the POW hospital admission numbers reflect projections for the entire year, the POW death numbers do not! How so? Well, in effect Bacque maintains that the "annual projected" 2,868 POW death total shown on Table IX is simply phony. He gets there by looking at Table X, which shows a total of 2,304 deaths from disease during the 6 week period from the 12 chief causes listed, and which, if you project them out for a full year, results in a total of 19,968 annual deaths from disease. That of course is much better, because against a study population of 80,563 a total of 19,968 deaths per year gives you an annual death rate of 24.78%.

9. But we are still not quite at the over 30% rate. How to get there? It's simple - dredge up a Table 23 included in a 1969 Article published in the History of Preventative Medicine in Word War II which shows the number of POW deaths from disease during the same 6 weeks as 2,754 which when added to the 114 deaths from injury and battle casualty comes to a total death tole of 2,868. When annualized and applied to a study population base of 80,563 the result is a total death rate of 30.86% (52/6 = 8.67 x 2,868 = 24,866/ 80,563 = .3086)

10. But wait! Table IX shows the same number of POW deaths from disease as does Table 23 from the 1969 Article - doesn't that suggest that all numbers in Table IX are actual numbers experienced for the 6 week period? Of course not, silly! That would mean that Bacque's computation of the size of the POW population underlying the study was all wrong and we couldn't get to our 30% plus death rate. We would be back to that 3.56% rate which, although pretty bad, certainly wouldn't sell any books at all. No, the explanation is simple:

The evidence is clear that the author of this History [Table IX] hid the death rate by suppressing evidence.....[He] simply reproduced the POW death figures for six weeks as if they applied to a whole year. He thus apparently reduced the death rate of 29.7 percent per year for disease to 3.42 percent. This is probably why the author of the History did not show Table X complete. Table X's true total of 2,754 would have revealed that he had deceptively used the same number in Table IX......Because in Table IX the disease death rate has been falsified, the rates for injury and battle casualty have almost certainly been falsified downwards to reduce the death rate......

It's a case of falsification, suppression of facts, cover up!!! That should surely sell some books! BUT:

(a) There is nothing whatsoever in Table IX that suggests that the numbers stated are anything other than those actually experienced during the 6 week period reviewed, and certainly no hint that they might be projected annual totals. If the latter was the case, surely the author would have so indicated.

( If the numbers stated are annual projection of 6 week actuals, then the figures for US Troops simply make no sense. Let's test Bacque's technique for determining the size of the POW population underlying the study(see 7. above) to determine the size of the US Troops in the ETO European Theater of Operations. The US hospital admissions are shown on Table IX for injuries are 31,070; divide that by the 101 rate per thousand per annum shown and the result is a US troop count of 307,624 in the entire ETO in May - June of 1945. I don't know what the exact number actually was, but it was many times the result of applying Bacque's approach.

© Let's test it just once more to make sure the first wasn't a fluke. Take the 1,162 total US Troop deaths shown and divide it by the total US Troop death rate of 4.1 per 1000 per year. Here we get an even more lidicrous result of 283, 415 for the US Troop comliment in the ETO.

(d) Bacque notices the absurd results produced by application of his methodology to the US TRoop figures, but brushes them away as either statistically unreliable or based on a different survey. And anyway, so what:

These difficulties in Army statistics are typical and usually prevent anyone from discovering the death rate in the camps.

Appendix 2, at p.211.

11. I find it passing strange for a historian to attack the credibility of the only documentary source he has for the theorem he is proposing, but I suppose there is something to the saying that a drowning man will clutch at a sword. As a lawyer, I've been caught myself a few times in desperation to find an argument to save a hopeless case. But I don't think it says much for the integrity of a historian.

13. It seems tolerably clear to me that both [Forum Member] and James Bacque in their different ways have approached Table IX "bassackwards" in the parlance often employed in this part of the world. If you just hone up and apply Occam's well known razor by simply accepting the Table for what it clearly says it is all internal inconsistencies and contradictions vanish into thin air, and one is still left with a shameful 3.56% annual POW death rate, which the Table itself deplores by pointing out that it is nearly 9 times that of US Troops. The only inconsistency is that the POW population derived by applying the various rates per 1000 per annum to the various numbers given the result in each case hovers around 700,000, and that disagrees with a POW population for the study of 70,000 which appears somewhere in the text of the study (which Bacques fails to set out.) Well, its not too hard for me to imagine a tired typist missing a zero - I made the identical mistake on one of my previous posts, and although I'm a superantiquated two finger hunt and peck typist, I at least like to think that others may also be capable of making mistakes too.

14. But then of course without allegations of a shockingly high death rate, outrageous conduct at the highest levels of government, rampant falsifications, suppression of evidence, coverups - how is a book supposed to sell?

15. The above is BORING beyond belief, and I solemly vow that this is absolutely, definitely, finally, without reservation, cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye, my very last post on this topic! (Unless, of course, I am once again overwhelmed by temptation.)

Regards, [signed]</font>

[painfbat]

I'm sorry you " didn't get the picture ".

I gave the link to show there are more discussions coming by every now and then. And I found the fact that there is a thing like a medal historically interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

This was my version of "To night on History Channel" and not a rightwingholocaustdenialilovethebrownshirtswithmoustacheandblackshinybootsgermanspeakingwe gotogetussomelebensraum-propaganda that you probably think it is.

cheers

[Andreas]

I don't know which picture there was to get. You linked a discussion that lacked a serious analysis of Bacque's claims. I provided such an analysis, to give you (and other readers) the opportunity to make up their mind. If I think that what you linked is "rightwingholocaustdenialilovethebrownshirtswithmoustacheandblackshinybootsgermanspeakingwe gotogetussomelebensraum-propaganda", you'll notice, don't worry.

Where's the problem?

All the best

Andreas

[painfbat]

I quess the nightshifts are killing my brains as I'm not the 20-year old I used to be.

But it did cross my mind that you had the idea I'm into Bacque, according to your "Debunking of Bacque's nonsense for painfbat".

And I'm not.

I'll copy the analysis to the other forum to be sure everybody that reads the topic has the info they should have.

Cheers,

[Andreas]

Originally posted by painfbat:

And I'm not.

I know.

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

painfbat,

Thank you for a link with some impressive militaria pictures and a fascinating back and forth rational discussion of issues related to the initial link topic. Seems to me the respondent to the original poster did a terrific job of exposing the statistical flaws in Bacque's claims.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Here's a copy of a 1949 article by an American judge

who served in WW I and WW II describing how confessions were literally beaten out of German POWs suspected of war crimes.

http://www.codoh.com/atro/atrusa4.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

More Holocaust denial website linking. I have to hand it to you John, you certainly do know how to find them. Well done.

Regards

Andreas

[WineCape]

Judge van Rodin's article from his 1949 book is disturbing, nonetheless. Whether it comes from a 'holocaust denial website' is a moot point for me Andreas. Unless you were not sarcastic

[Andreas]

If you can find independent confirmation that the text available there is a correct quote of what van Rodin wrote, I have a closer read.

Until then it is text on a website dedicated to spreading a lie. That maybe a moot point for you, it is not for me. I see no reason to trust people running those websites when it comes to providing any info.

All the best

Andreas

[WineCape]

Point well taken.

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Blame Google! All I did was enter a search phrase, then follow up on what Google displayed. I posted the link specifically because the original source was cited, as was the background of the article's writer. IMO, the man's was eminently qualified, from a number of aspects, to discuss the topic. Had I been a little more "there" when I posted, I would've (in fact, meant to) posted a disclaimer, precisely so as to avoid rockets from people like you who are prepared to forever damn perfectly good information should it have the misfortune to appear on a nonPC site. I say again, the mere fact that I can recite from memory Mao's dicta for guerilla warfare doesn't ipso facto make me a Maoist, a Communist, or a guerilla. The same holds true for other topics!

Frankly, I'm getting awfully tired of being assailed by you and your ilk acting as self-appointed board goons doing your level best to supppress any and all discussions you don't like. Here's a novel idea--address the issues raised!

Regards,

John Kettler