WWII footage of axis crew trapped in burning tank

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Fionn:

3. Most people in the German Army/Nation/War Effort fall somewhere in between these two poles.

I agree to all except that. Most people in all nations fall somewhere between these two poles. And Germans do not and did not tend to fall to the 'negative' pole. No nation on this planet is free of guilt. Especially not the USA (just name them because they described themself so often as keeper of peace, justice and freedom)

[Berkut]

I am sometimes disturbed by this fascination for what I can only describe as war pornography. I myself have been victim to this morbid curiosity and sometimes I feel distinctly queasy and ill at ease.

Stuff like this has always been around though, from medieval art, american civil war photography, and the videogame like images from the gulf conflict.

War may bring out the most noblest of attributes in men, but it also brings out the most bestial as well. Neither side in a conflict can entirely absolve itself. It is a truism that the victor writes the history, and they will always portray their enemies as less than human, and build; as Fionn once put it, comfort myths about Our boys

IMO images of violent death like this should bring you down to earth with a thump. Any notion you may hold, that the war dead are indeed glorious should be swept away by the obscenity of it all.

Another thing to remember is that Remarque's book/film and the french movie J'accuse were all banned by the allies...just as they had been banned by the germans. Truth always being the first and last casualty of war.

But always remember that you are playing a game. It's not the real thing. If you are troubled by it, then do as Wild Bill suggested and go play monopoly.

[Ozzy]

Berkut,

let me tell you that I as German citizen am frequently asked by many people -having our history well in mind- "How can you play CM?", or "How can you participate in CMMC?"

I ask them in change: do you play Chess or Risk? Chess, Risk and many other board, card and computer games are nothing else but wargames. The only difference is that chess figures have no faces, do not scream or else. They are abstracts of soldiers or troops, but what players do is nothing else than simulating a "hostile" action against an enemy (opponent) to achieve one's goals.

I have hence no problem with those games - if I would question CM, then I would have to do with almost the half of all known games of the world.

I have neither a problem with military intervention where it is due and necessary to bring or keep peace, freedom and justice - despite all cruelties related to it.

Unfortunately the innocent usually suffer most of military conflicts, but though I hate it I understand that this cannot be helped.

What I wanted to point out is that we can PLAY whatever game we want to play, as long as it IS a game. But I cannot accept any glorification of war or so called war heroes.

As I have pointed out earlier in another thread - the IMO truest heroes Germany has ever seen were our "Debris Women", who have rebuild our cities with their hands, lacking of homes, food and medical care, and with their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons being dead or POWs.

The footage of war actions might help us to remind that war in reality has nothing glorious in itself.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fionn:

4. He always told me that the Wehrmacht troops he dealt with ( on the two occasions he was captured and held... once after the fall of Belgium, once after his capture with explosives in 1944) treated him very fairly, sharing rations and never beating or threatening him or his compatriots unduly.

If it came out in the news tomorrow that a group of Al Queda were captured that knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, and that "allied" agents were using torture and abuse to establish the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, how many people from the "allied" countries would object or truly care what happened to these Al Queda?

The point being, of course, that try as we might, we have no way of viewing life in the 1940s through the lens that they themselves did. The world has changed far too much for that - our views on just about everything, from the equality of women, to our views on basic human rights - have changed forever, and continue to evolve.

What is repugnant to us was obviously not to the SS men with pitchforks. We're right to condemn them, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they were all "evil" and deny that they all had their individual motivations.

I will agree that some deserve to die while young, and that "evil" is probably pretty easily definable. But go back and step into the shoes of many of these "evil" people, and the definition changes.

Would a US Special Forces soldier who wires a captured Taliban's genitals to a field phone and puts him through excruciating pain and threats of death - but extracts the location of Osama bin Laden from him so he can be brought to justice - truly evil?

I reiterate that not all these things are truly black and white. Emotions can only be deeply felt at the time and we would be hard pressed to truly understand what motivates a German, living now in the 21st Century so far from the conditions of the time. Most of us on this board have never lived through economic depression or military defeat, or known a politician with as much influence on a personal, charismatic level as Adolf Hitler. So it is pretty hard for us to relate.

EDIT - I love the statement the other poster provided - the bad thing was not that the Germans were monsters, but that they weren't.

[ May 26, 2002, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Would a US Special Forces soldier who wires a captured Taliban's genitals to a field phone and puts him through excruciating pain and threats of death - but extracts the location of Osama bin Laden from him so he can be brought to justice - truly evil?

Yes. If side A uses the same methods as side B, then they are both the same scum. Cruelty does not justify further cruelty. Crime does not justify further crime. Pearl Harbour does not justify Hiroshima. Some casualties and emotional stress does not justify Mi-Lay. And of course, madness and rassism does not justify Auschwitz.

Don't missunderstand me. This things has been done. All them time, always and by many people. Nothing can and will ever justify human cruelty, Anyway, this is a part of the human nature. We can be all monsters, if we can only justify it for ourselves, at least for a moment.

[ May 26, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Yes. If side A uses the same methods as side B, then they are both the same scum. Cruelty does not justify further cruelty.

Personally, I agree...there are many who would not.

[Fionn]

Scipio,

I agree. People in ALL nations fall somewhere between these poles... I was just focussing on the Germans since this discussion was also doing so.

2. Dorosh... I don't see the connection between your point and the bit from me you quoted...Could you explain.

I think what you "might" be getting at is that evil is subjective and therefore these guys who tortured suspected resistance members thought they were doing good to prevent further sabotage etc. Agreed.

OTOH my point wasn't that Gestapo guys might have been justified in torturing my grandfather... My point was that the "average" German soldier he came across was just another ordinary farmer or middle class guy doing his duty without anything in the way of excessive hatred or whatever.

FWIW I would support the use of torture etc to gain information to prevent terrorist attacks. And, yes, since the Germans would have defined my grandfather as a terrorist if I had been in German shoes back then I'd have tortured him to get him to give me info so I could break his cell.

Again I'd like to point out that I was stepping in to try and stop a wastefuly flamewar. I wasn't writing a fully reasoned and comprehensive article about the issue of guerilla warfare and man's inhumanity to man. Please guys, take it for what it was... an attempt to show the people involved that they had some common ground and to get them to move on.

I didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's ok?

As re: Scipio's later point in reply to Dorosh's "Would you torture a terrorist ( as defined by yourself and your government) to prevent further loss of life?" question... Scipio... Agreed. I amn't saying that the fact that I'd do "whatever it took" to get the info is RIGHT. I'm just saying that I WOULD do whatever it took.

If the war crimes tribunal afterwards figured I was a criminal then so be it. Hell, I'd agree with them. That agreement wouldn't stop me doing whatever I felt necessary to save lives entrusted to my care though. So, just because I'd do it doesn't mean I think it is a morally good option.

FWIW I'd also agree that cruelty doesn't justify further cruelty ( confusing neh? ). OTOH if I thought torturing one guy would save 50 then I choose to save the 50. I fully accept that others find that barbarous and I fully accept that it is quite probably morally wrong etc etc and could lead to war crimes charges if done etc. OTOH I'd feel pretty OK about any sentence passed if I knew I'd saved 50 lives.

[Ozzy]

Fionn, to be honest: if I would be one of the 50, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life....

Not because I tortured anybody, but because my life was saved by torturing somebody.

Have some deserved to die young?

No. We are just human beings, and it is not given to our hands to decide about life and death. I have a God who tells me "You shall not kill". There is no add-on like "...except if it is a terrorist." or "...except it is a SS concentration camp guard."

If I have to defend my life or the lifes and homes of those next to me - I have no problem to grab a weapon and do it. If it is to stop tyranny or to maintain order, peace, justice and freedom, again I would do it - even if my opponent dies. But I did not do it intentionally, and that is the difference. Executing and torturing other human beings must be strictly condemned. How can I claim dignity and justice if I myself do not respect them in achieving my goals?

I have a good friend, now already grown to the age of 78 (I think). A peaceful, nice old man, who likes to tell stories about this and that. His unit was forced to search and fight partisans in the Balkans for almost one year. All he would ever tell about this year is that it was the most horrible time of his entire life, that he has been awarded the Bandenbekämpfungsabzeichen (Anti-Partisan Badge) to his utterest disgust, and that he would give everything (including havin died on the Eastern front) for being able to change his history.

[ May 26, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

BTW, I know the site with the link is pretty odious, but I would hope the topic/footage itself isn't worthy of a lock. I find the footage to be some of the most amazing combat film I've ever seen, and after all most of us are knocking out Shermans and Panthers in CM on a daily basis.

I have heard that this site [ ogrish.com ] installs Trojans or spyware on visitors' machines. I can't say if that's true or not,

I went there once to DL something, but my firewall may have blocked it. ZoneAlarm didn't notify me of any attempt, though, maybe I am infected, or maybe it's just a rumor.

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Dan5681:

It was on "Suicide Missions", the Sherman tank episode.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Zaraath:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

BTW, I know the site with the link is pretty odious, but I would hope the topic/footage itself isn't worthy of a lock. I find the footage to be some of the most amazing combat film I've ever seen, and after all most of us are knocking out Shermans and Panthers in CM on a daily basis.

I have heard that this site [ ogrish.com ] installs Trojans or spyware on visitors' machines. I can't say if that's true or not,

I went there once to DL something, but my firewall may have blocked it. ZoneAlarm didn't notify me of any attempt, though, maybe I am infected, or maybe it's just a rumor.</font>

[Zipper]

Originally posted by Ozzy:

Fionn, to be honest: if I would be one of the 50, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life....

Not because I tortured anybody, but because my life was saved by torturing somebody.

Have some deserved to die young?

No. We are just human beings, and it is not given to our hands to decide about life and death. I have a God who tells me "You shall not kill". There is no add-on like "...except if it is a terrorist." or "...except it is a SS concentration camp guard."

I totally disagree that it is not moral to torture a terrorist to prevent the loss of life. If you were one of the 50 saved and you felt guilty, I would feel sorry and recommend councelling, but torturing that terrorist was the moral thing to do. I'm not sure what it is about today's society that leads to this "moral equivalence" (a topic that is all the rage in the media) where intent and context are thrown out the window. Some acts are evil and it is good to prevent them. However, I do agree that this is not a black and white issue. If you weren't sure the terrorist had the information you needed, things get a little dicey.

As for God... My God (and my government) say it's OK to kill in self defence. Not only is it OK, it's encouraged to save your own life in that situation. And, it is in our hands to determine life and death! If you have a serious illness, do you go to the doctor, or do you leave it in God's hands?! The challenge we all have is to use our intellect to act morally to benefit ourselves and others. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world agrees.

My 2 cents.

Zipper

[Fionn]

Ozzy, I absolutely respect your right to your opinion regarding this. I see it as a moral issue and different people will therefore have very different but equally valid views.

You and I just draw the line in different places. You sound like you believe in a God etc. I'm an atheist and believe that the only person I'll have to answer to is my own self-image prior to death. Perhaps if I believed in a God I'd feel differently.

Personally I think that people with views similar to mine end up keeping societies safe from the horrible things that go on "out there" whilst the people with the more compassionate views are the kinds of people who make the societies that are kept safe worth keeping safe.

[pcpilot]

My father was a tanker in Pattons' army. He died before I got to ask him what he saw and went thru. Ill never forget the old B25 pilot who walked away in tears after telling me only he and one other of his unit survived the european war. These video footages remind us of what war really is all about...killing. I have always been curious of war. I have played war games since a child, first playing with plastic soldiers, then board games, now computer. I have studied military history since childhood thru books spending hours in the library reading and listening to LPs of the sounds of war. I spent 14 years in the US Marines and Navy during the coldwar and the Iran and Lebanese crisis. I watched B52s incinerate a small island in the pacific during a training flight and saw a harpoon missile break a FRAM destroyer in two and send it to the bottom in 3 minutes. Almost everyday I look into the eyes of the people whose pictures are in the paper and on TV news. I love playing the games but I have never forgotten what war really is. I will always pray for those who endure its horror and do what I can to help. And I will never be ungrateful to my God who saw fit to keep me free of it.

[Tarquelne]

"If the war crimes tribunal afterwards figured I was a criminal then so be it. ... So, just because I'd do it doesn't mean I think it is a morally good option."

Never let your sense of morality keep you from doing what's right? A philosophy prof. once almost had a fit when I said that.

OT, but I think the key concpet here is sacrifice. Fionn's saying he'd be willing to sacrifice the moral high ground to accomplish something desireable. Sacrificing one's own life is seen as virtuous, why not sacrificing one's morality? Rock and a hard place: Either he sacrifices his "virtue", or a bunch of other people die - his choice. Arguably, you could also say that the torture subject is being sacrificed - he puts up with considerable pain, possibly death, to save a bunch of people. Not voluntarily, sure, but does a hero have to choose to do something heroic for it to count?

Anybody got some skis?

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

"Pearl Harbour does not justify Hiroshima?"

I disagree here. Hiroshima was not cruel punishment for Pearl Harbor. It was to end the war as qucikly as possable through terror so as to reduce the horrific attrition the US (and Japinese civilian population) would have suffered durring an attack on Japan's home islands.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Personally I think that people with views similar to mine end up keeping societies safe from the horrible things that go on "out there" whilst the people with the more compassionate views are the kinds of people who make the societies that are kept safe worth keeping safe.

Good bit of reasoning there sir. I am agnostic (belive in the possability of a creator, but subscribe to no specific faith) and what you say is very true. It is the god-fearing, moral following, compassionate people that make societies worth keeping; while those that do not follow a specific set of moral rules based on their religion and/or personal values are the ones that keep said societies safe from the threats that the world presents them.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by pcpilot:

. . . I have never forgotten what war really is. I will always pray for those who endure its horror and do what I can to help. And I will never be ungrateful to my God who saw fit to keep me free of it.

Agreed, but remember: war can come to anyone at any time. If it were possable, just ask many of those Volkstrum units that were made of kids and old men, and the passengers on those flights on September 11th.

[ May 27, 2002, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[Tarquelne]

"Personally I think that people with views similar..."

"...while those that do not follow a specific set of moral rules based on their religion and/or personal values..."

If true (I'm not saying it is, I'm not saying it isn't) then I think, in addition to keeping the Compasionate Ones safe, it also prevents the COs from developing a sophisticated enough world-view to remain both a CO and "hard" enough to Do What Must Be Done. (It's 2 am here - the capitalization hour.) Not good.

Actually, though, I think you (both) might be confusing "bleeding hearts" with merely "good people." Having the gumption to perform a little torture doesn't mean you can't be a White Hat.

(Hey, this is basically the Victorian-era concept of a "homemaker" - explicitly a woman at the time - who is the Moral Entity, as opposed to the "person of affairs" (generally thought of as male) who often acts with less than perfect morality as an accepted part of conducting his business, whatever it may be.)

That's "might" - What I think _is_ going on most of the time is that those who've decided they're willing to engage in some mayhem - morally justified or not - protect those who generally don't think about moral issues at all. Cynical? Sure - but is it cynical enough? I keep thinking I'm a cynic but then it turns out I was being an optomist.

Some of the military people I've met have been among the most "morally conscious"... oops - Morally Conscious people I've known. OTOH, some of the military people made my skin crawl. I think warfare causes people to make some choices: Refuse to kill, no matter the cause? Kill, but want to feel it's justified, and try (at least) not to come to enjoy it? (I think that's what most people do.) Or kill, and think its great fun. (Rare, I believe, but it's been encouraged at times - the SS, for example.)

I really just don't like the concept of the lawless few protecting the "compasionate" masses. Not only is it easily twisted to justify any sort of horror those few might need to perpetrate in the name of protecting their hearth, but (more importantly) I think it unessisarily cheapens the value of moral and or intellectual devlopment for both groups. Everyone should have a strong moral code - even if you're out backstabbing enemy sentries in the jungle. (In fact, I think such people need one more than most.) And every _adult_ should know that the world is sometimes a dark and horrible place, and that moral decisions aren't always easy. I don't think a society can stay healthy if many people have such an unrealistic worldview.

The most moral of the military people I met were _not_ always the least hard hearted, most compasionatte, most kind-to-puppies, or whatever. Some of 'em were real bloodthirsty b*st*rds.

Bringing this explicitly back on topic:

Play enough wargames, see enough violence, and I think you end up making the same choice. (Though not nearly as intesely as anyone who's actually had a human target in his sights, certainly.) I think the trouble is if you don't see the full consequences of violence/killing enough it's easy to make the "SS" decision. Likewise, if you see the consequences too often as part of your casual entertainment you can become Desensitized, and again relatively easily fall for the "SS" decision. The key issue is, then, not trying to find the perfect balance between showing too much "gore" and not enough, but rather making sure people aren't ignorant - That they actually invest a little brain power into the matter. And I simply don't think that's the media's job.

Sort of a radical concept, but I think people need to be educated (by parents or schools, either or both) to make the right decisions. The danger isn't in exposing people to too little or too much violence, it's lies with people not understanding the nature of violence - esp. mass violence - itself.

[Ozzy]

Fionn and Vader,

yes, I believe in my God, but that is not necessarily the reason for different morale views. Remember that most of the ethical and morale aspects which people (and governments) in Europe, the Americas, and many other places in the world commonly believe to be true, are based on religion (note I talk here of non-extremists, and doing so, you note that the Christian, Jewish, Islamic views and that of and many religions of Africa and Asia are not so different).

Even atheists share many of these ethical beliefs.

Nonetheless, I see the reality, and I see that there will be always Hitlers and bin Ladens (maybe of other size, but compare these two men in compassion and charisma, and you know what I mean). That is why I see the necessity of what we in Germany call an "Able-Bodied Democracy". To avoid any misconceptions about by morale views: only my health has prevented me from joining the German armed forces as Officer; I have worked as Engineer in the military industry, and I will do it again in a soon future.

What I wanted to express is that IMO we cannot begin military or "police" actions against the "evil" (and the add the definition: evil = ruthless, inhumane, without respect for life or other opinions and religions, intolerance, no dignity, etc.), but use the same or similar methods like the ones we condemn.

I know it is in self-defense, but if I can do it otherwise than with inhuman practics, well, why not strive for such a solution

Btw: thanks, Fionn, for always posting well balanced and level-headed messages! It is a pleasure to share thoughts with you (and many others of course) :cool:

[ May 27, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Zipper:

As for God... My God (and my government) say it's OK to kill in self defence. Not only is it OK, it's encouraged to save your own life in that situation. And, it is in our hands to determine life and death! If you have a serious illness, do you go to the doctor, or do you leave it in God's hands?! The challenge we all have is to use our intellect to act morally to benefit ourselves and others. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world agrees.

I speak about life and death of other people. If I have an illness and go to the Doctor, it is MY life. And a visit to hospital for cancer or AIDS patients will show us quickly that Doctors can help us to live longer, but until today they haven't defeated the death.

Just like I claim to live my life according to my opinion, I must allow others to do the same. Things become critical if an opinion affects the life of others. I then have not the slightest problem with self-defense, and I believe there is even a moralic obligation to defend your life, freedom, and possess, and that of others. The question is HOW can I achieve that.

The important aspect of your posting is that there are often several ways to solve a situation (e.g. go to the Doctors or try homeopathics, torture the terrorist or not). Frequently the way many people would consider intellectually the correct one is not the easiest one - THAT is the challenge.

Remember that old men I told of, who fought partisans in the Balkans - he felt this absolutely correct, as those Partisans were killing his comrades, and would kill him as well if they could. He did not question WHY they fought the partisans, but HOW. Most interestingly, he once admitted he felt some sympathy for them - if his home would have been occupied, he would have displayed the same resistant attitude. That is to say, there is never black and white. Black and white is a question of the point of view. Both sides of a conflict will claim to be white and accuse the others to be black. Grey, in almost infinte shades, is the colour of this world....

[ May 27, 2002, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

"Pearl Harbour does not justify Hiroshima?"

I disagree here. Hiroshima was not cruel punishment for Pearl Harbor. It was to end the war as qucikly as possable through terror so as to reduce the horrific attrition the US (and Japinese civilian population) would have suffered durring an attack on Japan's home islands.

See, Vader, Hiroshima is an excellent example for what I am arguing for.

I absolutely agree, that the two nuclear bombs have stopped the Pacific War at instance, to the benefit of hundreds of thousands of people who would have died on both sides in a home island invasion - unfortunately at a high price.

As you say, the desired effect was deterrence. Where there no other targets than civilian in Japan to demonstrate the power of those weapons? If deterrence, not destruction, was the objective, the US could as well have chosen other targets.

It is not that I condemn the usage of these weapons, nor the reasons for it, but the choice of the targets is questionable.

Again: not WHY, but HOW?!

[flamingknives]

The torturing of a terrorist to save 50 others is a bit of a simple example. The problems here are that :

1) Are you sure he's a terrorist?

2) Will the information you gain really save x number of people?

Without good old 20/20 hindsight, you can never really justify your actions to that degree.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The torturing of a terrorist to save 50 others is a bit of a simple example. The problems here are that :

1) Are you sure he's a terrorist?

2) Will the information you gain really save x number of people?

Without good old 20/20 hindsight, you can never really justify your actions to that degree.

True. How many more "martyrs" will the torture inspire ? How will it be used as propaganda against the torturer ? Stomping on one ant may wake up the entire colony.

[ May 27, 2002, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

"Pearl Harbour does not justify Hiroshima?"

I disagree here. Hiroshima was not cruel punishment for Pearl Harbor. It was to end the war as qucikly as possable through terror so as to reduce the horrific attrition the US (and Japinese civilian population) would have suffered durring an attack on Japan's home islands.

This is unfortunatly not the full truth. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. That is only the public justification.

The military occupation of Japan had caused tremendous casualties? Japan was military nearly helpless at that point. The fleet was destroyed. They even hadn't planes for the Kamikaze pilots anymore. Japan was economical isolated, out of supply and resources. There is no oil, iron or bauxite on the Japan islands. Less then 20% of the Japan can be used for agriculture.

Already isolation had forced them to capitulate - it only had taken more time. An A-bomb some miles from the coast over the sea to threaten them, too.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed for other reasons : to test this brand new weapon on real targets before the war is over, and to show Stalin that the USA is able and willing to do this - cause the cold war were in princip already running.

Beside that, if you prefer another example : Pearl Harbor does not justify Tokio.