Honour in Combat, Mk IIa

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Andreas,

Blame Google! All I did was enter a search phrase, then follow up on what Google displayed.

Cheap excuse. You claim you were an analyst. Did you never check the quality of the sources? So, sorry since Google did not post the link to a Holocaust denier website here, I won't blame it.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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.

Maybe, maybe not. Since all we have to go on is a text on a Holocaust denier website, I withhold my judgement on whether he even existed.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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.

Well, if it is such important and good information, I am sure you'll be able to find it on a website that is not espousing a lie. I like the use of the term 'nonPC' by you. So the only thing wrong with Holocaust denial then is that it is not PC?

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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!

True - but then again, the site you linked does a bit more than just being able to recite Mao. So your analogy is irrelevant.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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!

Yeah, and I get awfully tired of you posting Holocaust denial links and then pretending you did not know about it. Here's a novel idea - stop doing it.

Regards

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Check Sergeant Leland Sutherland's account here, paragraph 5. I believe you'll find it valuable. Concerns caring for the wounded, regardless of whose.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/tankers_pp_13_to_19.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 16, 2006, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

I'm going to present a different take on the judge and his article, for I've come across several interesting new angles. Guarantee you'll approve of the site!

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//v/van-roden.edward/1999/usenet.9912

Judge Roden is also described just below the Pak 40 image near the bottom of this page.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/malmedy2.html

This online version of a 1949 book, Utley's THE HIGH COST OF VENGEANCE (found on a site I know you detest) discusses Judge Roden and his investigation in chapter 7, Our Crimes Against Humanity, page 185 et seq. You may hate the site, but the publisher of the book, Regnery, is still in business publishing books decidedly to the Right.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thcov/index.html#Contents

tonyh here has some useful insights on American interrogation methods, including quotes from the Bishop of Worms. It also presents the view that

great mileage has been had by revisionists and Holocaust deniers from the THE PROGRESSIVE article, but that Congressional investigation revealed that someone else wrote the article.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32364

Turning now to your latest diatribe, I answer as follows:

Yes, I was an analyst, a highly respected all source threat analyst whose counsel was earnestly sought by top military aerospace managers and who was listened to with rapt attention by military and intelligence officials alike. Have you ever

left a roomful of generals and colonels gobsmacked because you not only covered all the issues but anticipated and answered their questions before they could ask them? I have. I was so good at my job that I managed to continue to turn out great product even when as a result of a security flap we were strictly prohibited from even using classified data. I was so skilled at digging for the truth and evaluating the meaning of the data that I repeatedly found myself in areas way beyond my clearance, having to explain to security types how I knew this or that. They get really excited when you unmask black projects.

Hardly surprising, when you consider that even before entering military aerospace I wrote an unclassified white paper for my father on a conceptual advanced system, a paper which triggered a full scale security flap at Hughes Aircraft Company. Why? Because I remembered something I read in AVIATION WEEK and applied it to the conceptual system requirement document I wrote.

Item 2 in your list was covered at the beginning of the post.

Item 3 is obviously an attempt by you to provoke and inflame. I have repeatedly and publicly stated that I reject ethnic cleansing and the like no matter who does it. That does not mean, though, that I am prepared to reject, a priori,

data from a site simply because it espouses views

repugnant to many or because it dares to challenge

a zealously guarded viewpoint. I am committed to the truth, wherever that may lead and however embarrassing to some it may turn out. My analogy stands.

If we take your philosophy to its logical conclusion, then tens of thousands of intel analysts should never have read any Soviet documents, nor sullied themselves by interacting with and exploiting captured ComBloc hardware, since the regime was (insert long list of pejoratives here). Such a policy is nothing less than insane, IMO.

As for your last item, bring a light bulb and a lunch. I'm going to continue to follow the data, not kowtow to your manic board tyranny. Clearly, you do not subscribe to Voltaire's statement on articulating contrarian views, either! Perhaps you've encountered it? Says "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Sergeant Baskem Bennett describes how rather than being sent into captivity after being "unhorsed" in the Faid Pass, a Panzer commander merely made sure he was unarmed, then pointed back to the Allied lines.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/tankers_pp_24_to_27.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

The battle in the hedgerows stops for the sake of a civilian funeral.

http://www.tankbooks.com/charland/charland12.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[wunwinglow]

During the earlier part of the Normandy campaign, the British had a great gun which was as good as the 88. I believe it was a 76 or 78 pounder but it was not used like the German 88. It's too bad because it might have made a great contribution to allied armor as a tank destroyer. It was used mostly for anti-aircraft until later when it was used for ground work. Then a lot of Tigers and Royals were blown away.

Ever felt gloriously smug, and then awfully guilty and humble a micro-second later? Closest I have ever been to an 88 is in a museum....

wun

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I am a great analyst

So why the need to blame Google? Or was it just a cheap attempt to gloss over the fact that you knowingly posted another Holocaust denier link?

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Item 3 is obviously an attempt by you to provoke and inflame.

Unlike you calling me a goon, which is obviously your idea of polite conversation.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I'm going to continue to follow the data, not kowtow to your manic board tyranny. Clearly, you do not subscribe to Voltaire's statement on articulating contrarian views, either! Perhaps you've encountered it? Says "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Okay, so you are going to believe serial liars if they post something on the internet that confirms your views.

You can call pointing out that you get your info from Holocaust denier websites board tyranny for as long as you want. I call it a public service. As long as you continue to rake in the muck, I'll continue to point out that your evidence stinks. That sounds fair to me. If you don't like it, tough. Find better evidence.

Regards

Andreas

[flamingknives]

----Technical Break----

Originally posted by wunwinglow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> During the earlier part of the Normandy campaign, the British had a great gun which was as good as the 88. I believe it was a 76 or 78 pounder but it was not used like the German 88. It's too bad because it might have made a great contribution to allied armor as a tank destroyer. It was used mostly for anti-aircraft until later when it was used for ground work. Then a lot of Tigers and Royals were blown away.

Ever felt gloriously smug, and then awfully guilty and humble a micro-second later? Closest I have ever been to an 88 is in a museum....

wun </font>

[Tagwyn]

How is this related to honor in combat? Were the Brits giving the Nazis a break by not using this weapon like an '88'? In combat there is only victory for one side and death/destruction for the other, unless other surrenders. Tag

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

If you go back to the statement in question, you'll see that I clearly did NOT call you a goon. Rather, I said your behavior and that of your ilk was that of a goon. As any number of books on how to fight fairly and those who do counseling will tell you, it is inappropriate and escalatory to call names, but perfectly appropriate and deescalatory to identify and complain about hurtful behavior by others toward you.

Thus, Andreas, I say to you that when you attack me personally simply because I use information sources which you don't like/find repugnant/hate,

I find it hurtful, insulting, outrageous and feel both affronted and violated, especially since I treat you with the very dignity and respect you deny me. I am really tired of your and others' efforts to suppress perfectly legitimate discussion by use of intimidation, neoNazi and Holocaust denier labeling, and ad hominem attacks, rather than discussing the issues in a rational and adult manner.

I have been repeatedly portrayed as a cross between the village idiot and some slavering hater. I have been viciously assailed and condemned as someone possessed of no critical faculties, accused of lying, and worse. And these are despite a formidable track record of success

in cutting edge military aerospace programs, great academic achievement (finished degree with 3.65 GPA while working full time), major contributions to an Oscar winning documentary and several others, a solid string of investigative articles read all over the world, and demonstrated personal integrity in a series of positions of trust spanning decades. Not one of you would put up with the treatment you've dished out, yet I'm supposed to just take it myself, when what you really hope is that I'll throw in the towel and stop posting on controversial topics. Forget it! It's not going to happen!

You expect me to roll over and play dead in the face of your data, but reject what I present at every turn. You're evidently so full of spleen that you didn't even bother to take note of the new, supportive to your view links I posted on Judge Van Roden. As for board tyranny, by that I mean using all manner of intimidation tactics to prevent the use of sources which don't suit you and socially isolate and ostracize the person using them. Bluntly put, such practices in my view constitute nothing less than naked aggression, and I'm surprised the moderators haven't waded in long since and warned or even banned several of you in consequence, for your behavior has been both boorish and barbaric. I'm here for rational discussion and informed debate with fellow adults who behave as such, and that explicitly includes treating me as they would wish themselves to be treated.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 18, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Wisbech_lad]

A somewhat better source:

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,780092,00.html

Note however that Van Roden diavowed the Progressive magazine article, saying that it was written by Finucane, and much was made up.

US Sebate (McCarthy) investigated - looking to embarass the army I believe and prove torture had taken place. That senate enquiry (to which van Roden testified) concluded that systematic torture did not take place.

The BBC recently ran stuff on post WW2 UK interrogations. They were not nice. Kettler, you may want to search.

Problem is that the holocaust deniers/ apologists love this stuff, because it gives them "moral relativism". The holocaust didn't happen, but even if it did, the Brits and the Yanks did nasty things too!

[Andreas]

John

I see you still have trouble getting the point I was making. Here it is again, shorn of all personal remarks:

Holocaust deniers = liars

Liars = not to be trusted

Conclusion: if it's from a Holocaust denial website I don't trust it. If somebody (you, or anyone else) posts info from a Holocaust denial website trying to use it as an argument, but does not mention its origin, I will point out the origin of the information, to allow others to draw their own conclusions on its veracity, and I will disbelieve whatever it says unless it is confirmed by a trustworthy source.

End of story.

In German we have a proverb: 'Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er dann die Wahrheit spricht.' I find that a good maxim to live by.

I hope that is clear now.

Regars

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Andreas,

I'm going to present a different take on the judge and his article, for I've come across several interesting new angles. Guarantee you'll approve of the site!

Now, regarding the other stuff you found:

1) Nizkor seems to disprove what was said in the Progressive article, thereby neatly proving my point on the trustworthyness of denial websites.

2) Jewish Virtual Library - copy of Scrapbookpages article, apparently not giving the whole story of the Roden investigation (misses the follow-on according to Nizkor and the Senate hearings).

3) VHO - if they told me the time I would get a second opinion.

4) tonyh is (as usual) being taken to task for his misguided notions about the war, guilt, and everthing. What else is new?

Also, it was not the Bishop of Worms, but Bishop Wurm of Stuttgart, and there is no information on where he got his evidence of mistreatment from.

So where does that leave the original claim made on the basis of an article on a denial website? Pretty much exactly where I thought it would end.

Your time would be more profitably employed following Wisbech_Lad's suggestion.

Regards

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Wisbech_lad,

Thanks for that! I'll take a look.

Andreas,

While I understand what your main point is, I think you're operating from a faulty premise: that the sites you don't label as neoNazi or Holocaust-denying have some sort of monopoly on the truth. Sadly for your cause, they don't, nor are many of the governments and those involved in nefarious activities likely to spill the beans on themselves, which I why it makes sense to see what

contrarian views, however controversial, have by way of alternative perspectives.

If, for the sake of example, someone said something derogatory about Israel and its policies and dared to post it, you might go into instant kneejerk reaction mode. What would happen, though, if the comment came from, say, an actual Jewish organization called Jews Against Zionism (JAZ)? What then?

Is its protest against the actions of Jewish extremists (actions which have demonstrably brought suffering and death to many nonZionists), against people every bit as out there for the average Jew as Black September was when compared to the average Palestinian, "hate speech" in your view?

What if JAZ goes straight for the jugular and denounces the current Israeli government for constantly cloaking itself in a Holocaust-born mantle of righteousness while simultaneously pursuing repressive policies, backing dictators, brandishing and practicing aggression (even threatening nuclear strikes) throughout the Middle East and beyond, manipulating and destabilizing foreign governments, and denying even basic rights to not only the Palestinians but its own Arab populace? What then? In your book, Andreas,

would such an "outing" be okay, or would you seek to block it at all costs?

Who, in your view, has the right to challenge the orthodox view, to question the "party line" whether time honored or not? Why should we limit ourselves thus?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Concerning the links I posted in the Van Roden batch, I want you to notice that I presented data which was damaging to my prior post. Contrast this with your blanket Nyet! when confronted with anything from a site you dislike. You're certainly welcome to post about the site, but you don't get to personally slang me in the process. Remember, too, your disapproval does NOT ipso facto invalidate information.

I garbled what I read in tonyh's post about the Bishop; checking the link afresh confirms that you are correct. Good catch! Since I do not frequent that forum, I defer to your views on the plight of tonyh.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

While I understand what your main point is, I think you're operating from a faulty premise: that the sites you don't label as neoNazi or Holocaust-denying have some sort of monopoly on the truth.

You are wrong to think so. Non sequitur. Assuming Holocaust deniers are untrustworthy liars does not equal assuming people not denying the Holocaust are always right.

Regards

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

I believe you'll find Excerpts 10, 11 and several others here of considerable interest.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWraf.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Here's a particularly egregious example of Eastern Front extremes, deliberate attack made exclusively against noncombatants who themselves may well have been slaves. (late war part of the link, 1944, I believe)

http://www.iremember.ru/signal/koriakin/koriakin.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tagwyn]

Honor in Combat? Jingly, the demise of Grog Kettler at the hands of Mace ... that would be merciful. Is it not so? Tag

[John Kettler]

Tagwyn,

As I understand it, a thesis or dissertation requires not merely having a premise, but presenting, discussing and analyzing the evidence

pro and con regarding that premise. Since Mr. Jingles asked for help, and has made it clear that the material I'm providing is useful to him, as and when I find it, I'm posting the link and a brief description to aid him in his research. I seem to keep running across a diverse array of research inputs for him, mostly while looking for something else, inputs which encapsulate the best and the worst of behavior in combat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

From Ryan's A BRIDGE TOO FAR, page 265 in paperback. A British signaller bends down to retrieve a radio, is wounded in the ankle, and goes to ground, only to be joined by a young S.S. soldier who binds the para's wound with the para's own battle dressing as the air is filled with lead. Both are then wounded and lie side by side until found.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Same source as immediately above, p. 328. A 21 year old SS squad leader (Russian Front veteran) named Ringsdorf engaged in vicious room-to-room combat with the paras in Arnhem is all set to grenade a basement when he hears a low moan and realizes it's full of British wounded. He stops instantly and sends for medics, ordering the wounded evacuated. As he's doing this topside, one of the prisoners drops dead from a bullet aimed at the SS squad leader. The British, you see, misunderstood what was happening initially and tried to save their wounded. Ringgold managed to get the whole lot to safety, then carried on with his combat mission.

Also, be sure to look at the truce for collection of wounded later in the battle of Arnhem. An SS major who was a medical officer was instrumental in that one. He's even in the photo section covering the Arnhem portion of the battle.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 28, 2006, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

At Arnhem, commander of SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, impressed by the ferocious British defense, sends in a truce party to offer the chance to surrender before he levels every building with tanks and artillery. Ryan's A BRIDGE TOO FAR, pages 415 and 416.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Mr. Jingles,

Same source, pages 484 and 485. Following fighting that makes ferocious seem tame, the remnants of the British force covering the bridge at Arnhem are ordered by the surviving officer in command to make arrangements to surrender the wounded, while the few who can still fight pull back in an attempt to hold on a little longer. The battalion medical officer manages to organize a truce, barely in time. Amid the shattered by direct tank and artillery fire, burning building,

British corpsmen and SS troopers only moments before engaged in street fighting so intense that one German said it was worse than Stalingrad, work feverishly to evacuate the wounded from the basement before the building collapses. With only minutes to spare, the wounded are gotten out and are then given chocolate and brandy by the Germans, taken from supplies the British could really have used but airdropped on the German positions instead. The Germans are hugely impressed with the professionalism, grit and courage of the paras they so recently fought.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

... and also used the truce to infiltrate the British positions, hastening the final collapse of their defence there. Good example of perfid... or, wait.