The postwar photographs that British authorities tried to keep hidden

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1745662,00.html

For almost 60 years, the evidence of Britain's clandestine torture programme in postwar Germany has lain hidden in the government's files. Harrowing photographs of young men who had survived being systematically starved, as well as beaten, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme cold, were considered too shocking to be seen.

Ciaran500

I'd be suprised if anyone would be shocked to find out this was going on.

scojones

A couple of questions:
1. Do you have a problem with the British? I ask this because of the last two threads you've created in After Hours.
2. Why is this in After Hours?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Ciaran500 wrote:

I'd be suprised if anyone would be shocked to find out this was going on.

i suppose your right
we have already heard that the Queens forces didn't act quite as they should of in the Falklands
how long before we find out what war crimes are going on today in iraq.

Steyr

sjones wrote:

A couple of questions:
1. Do you have a problem with the British? I ask this because of the last two threads you've created in After Hours.
2. Why is this in After Hours?

Thank you, just what i was going to ask, nobody cares, were all apart of Europe now let by gones be by gones please the past is the past look to the future.:rolleyes:

Steyr

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

we have already heard that the Queens forces didn't act quite as they should of in the Falklands
how long before we find out what war crimes are going on today in iraq.

Hey War is war, War is hell, s.h.i.t. happens, wat about the "other" side and what they did.......

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Steyr wrote:

nobody cares, were all apart of Europe now let by gones be by gones please the past is the past look to the future.:rolleyes:

1.I afraid you are wrong, i believe people do care, I certainly know quite a lot of people do and I'm sure the editor would not have printed the story if he believed nobody cared. But you have an interesting theory, 'if it didn't effect me i don't care'

2. Being part of Europe has no relevance to anything. These are crimes against humanity, not just crimes against one country. again i see that 'if it didn't effect me i don't care' attitude.
we should always care about our fellow human, even if he/she doesnt come from your country or have the same culture or skin colour as you.

4. True the past is in the past, but one should never forget but always forgive, we do learn quite a lot from history and history has also thought us that what went on in the past can and sometimes does go on today.

Blisterman

In all fairness, they were nazis who tortured and killed millions. They deserved it.

Just The One

is it just me or has anyone else noticed the ad for toyota below the pictures asking if you wanted the "perfect body". A little bit insenstitive I reckon

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Steyr wrote:

Hey War is war, War is hell, s.h.i.t. happens, wat about the "other" side and what they did.......

All war crimes and crimes against humanity are totally wrong no matter what "side" your on.

two wrongs doesn't make it right.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Blisterman wrote:

In all fairness, they were nazis who tortured and killed millions. They deserved it.

i do believe that this is a racist comment and therefore against the 'boards' charter and i certainly know its is against the '.ie' rules on site etiquette


Quite a lot of those 372 men and 44 women were in fact Russian and fought against Germany.

klong

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i do believe that this is a racist comment and therefore against the 'boards' charter and i certainly know its is against the '.ie' rules on site etiquette

So "Nazi" is a race?:rolleyes:

InFront

I'm not sure what the OP's opinions are on Britain at all, it sounds like it leaves a lot to be desired, however this is a serious issue and wrongs that were committed on both sides to need to be acknowledged.
Just because the British were fighting for the greater good, and they were, does not make them immune to criticism for how they historically treated their prisoners.

Blisterman wrote:

In all fairness, they were nazis who tortured and killed millions. They deserved it.

Did you read that article at all?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

klong wrote:

So "Nazi" is a race?:rolleyes:

they were not all German or Nazi, and they certainly did not deserve to die.

humanji

The sad thing is, this story is unlikely to get the same attention as Abu Ghraib, which is quite like a modern version of the event. The most they can hope for is for maybe a days worth of news and the Beitish governments promise of an investigation. After that, it'll be forgotten.

Eoin

Blisterman wrote:

In all fairness, they were nazis who tortured and killed millions. They deserved it.

Even if that group was made up entirely of Nazis, which the OP has already corrected you on; Nazi-ism was/is a loose collection of political ideas. It was the SS who tortured and killed millions in the concentration camps.
Many Germans, who may have subscribed to Nazi ideals - or at least did so publicly in order to remain safe themselves - did not even know about the exterminations, much less support them.

county

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i suppose your right
we have already heard that the Queens forces didn't act quite as they should of in the Falklands
how long before we find out what war crimes are going on today in iraq.

this is news to me,please enlighten me

randylonghorn

Steyr wrote:

Thank you, just what i was going to ask, nobody cares, were all apart of Europe now let by gones be by gones please the past is the past look to the future.:rolleyes:

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" (George Santayana)

Unfortunately, "history's most important lesson . . . is that man has not learned much at all from history" (Aldous Huxley, and the even more famous sjones!)

And no, I'm not having a go at the British ... the unfortunate thing is that there are episodes like this in the history of most, probably all, of the military powers.

That doesn't make them right, whoever was responsible.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i do believe that this is a racist comment and therefore against the 'boards' charter and i certainly know its is against the '.ie' rules on site etiquette

Quite a lot of those 372 men and 44 women were in fact Russian and fought against Germany.

I'm open to correction by the mods, but I personally can't see how referring to people who actually were members of the Nazi Party / Gestapo / SS or whatever as Nazis is either racist or in any way contravenes Boards etiquette. To describe someone as a Nazi simply because of the country s/he comes from, or call someone a Nazi because you disagree with them, would / should be.

However, you are right in pointing out that many of those involved here were not in fact Nazis.

Didn't actually mean to get so heavy here, but it shocks me sometimes that people can be dismissive about this type of human rights violation. Is it because we have seen so much of it that we have become inured to it?

One more quote, which I firmly believe in, then I'll get off my high horse and lighten up!

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Thomas Jefferson - I think anyway?)

Eoin

randylonghorn wrote:

I'm open to correction by the mods, but I personally can't see how referring to people who actually were members of the Nazi Party / Gestapo / SS or whatever as Nazis is either racist or in any way contravenes Boards etiquette. To describe someone as a Nazi simply because of the country s/he comes from, or call someone a Nazi because you disagree with them, would / should be.

Well, the poster was sort of assuming that all the people involved were Nazis, presumably because he thought they were all German. Both assumptions were incorrect, but probably more of an ignorant, throw-away and useless comment rather than actual racism.

randylonghorn

I take your point, Eoin, and I certainly wasn't defending the original comments, which were full of holes, as you pointed out earlier. I suppose I just get annoyed that "racist" is thrown around so easily these days, with much the same knee-jerk reaction as "Nazi" used to be. There's enough genuine racism out there without muddying the waters ...

That said, I should probably go away anyway ... I think that article and some of the reactions to it have just got under my skin!

Humour or The Nest, I think, until my blood has stopped boiling

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

eoin_s wrote:

Well, the poster was sort of assuming that all the people involved were Nazis, presumably because he thought they were all German. Both assumptions were incorrect, but probably more of an ignorant, throw-away and useless comment rather than actual racism.

fair point and i stand corrected.

'They deserved it' is still a disgusting comment from anybody, especially from moderator who couldn't be bothered to even read the article.
sad really.

Fratton Fred

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1745662,00.html

For almost 60 years, the evidence of Britain's clandestine torture programme in postwar Germany has lain hidden in the government's files. Harrowing photographs of young men who had survived being systematically starved, as well as beaten, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme cold, were considered too shocking to be seen.

So what's your point?

Interesting that you accuse someone of being racist. Hating the British is also racism as well.

Eoin

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

fair point and i stand corrected.

'They deserved it' is still a disgusting comment from anybody, especially from moderator who couldn't be bothered to even read the article.
sad really.

My post wasn't aimed at you in the slightest

Gurgle

eoin_s wrote:

Even if that group was made up entirely of Nazis, which the OP has already corrected you on; Nazi-ism was/is a loose collection of political ideas. It was the SS who tortured and killed millions in the concentration camps.
Many Germans, who may have subscribed to Nazi ideals - or at least did so publicly in order to remain safe themselves - did not even know about the exterminations, much less support them.

Even if everyone who was tortured was a full fledged member of the SS, that wouldn't justify torture. Thats why they're called war crimes - because they are illegal and unacceptable.

We're presented with a history of WW2 which shows that the good guys won. And, overall, they did, but they hardly kept their shiny white suits of armour clean in the process.

Eoin

Gurgle wrote:

Even if everyone who was tortured was a full fledged member of the SS, that wouldn't justify torture. Thats why they're called war crimes - because they are illegal and unacceptable.

We're presented with a history of WW2 which shows that the good guys won. And, overall, they did, but they hardly kept their shiny white suits of armour clean in the process.

I totally agree with you Gurgle, I wasn't condoning it under any circumstances.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Gurgle wrote:

Even if everyone who was tortured was a full fledged member of the SS, that wouldn't justify torture. Thats why they're called war crimes - because they are illegal and unacceptable.

We're presented with a history of WW2 which shows that the good guys won. And, overall, they did, but they hardly kept their shiny white suits of armour clean in the process.

agreed

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Even if everyone who was tortured was a full fledged member of the SS, that wouldn't justify torture. Thats why they're called war crimes - because they are illegal and unacceptable.

The problem is that people lump Nazi's and the SS altogether. Or rather those that committed war crimes, lumped together with both nazi's and SS members. While the majority of SS soldiers were members of the party, many joined for vastly different reasons, whether from true belief, desire to be powerful, liking the uniforms (designed by Armani), patriotic duty etc.

Not all SS soldiers committed warcrimes, just as not all nazi's did. There are numerous recollections of SS members protecting POW's, just as there are the same of SS members killing them out of hand. Same with members of the SS that worked in the concentration camps, and those that served on the front lines their whole time, never coming into contact with the death camps or those that worked there.

pointing to the SS & the Nazi's and labelling them all as war crinimals is a mass generalisation, and continued expression of the propaganda the Allies put forward during and after the war.

In part it moves the focus away from their own actions, and the actions of their glorious allies like the Russians who raped hundreds of thousands of women on their march to berlin. Not exactly the sort of image you want the public to seriously consider, even 40-50 years afterwards.

We're presented with a history of WW2 which shows that the good guys won. And, overall, they did, but they hardly kept their shiny white suits of armour clean in the process.

Bigtime agree. Its interesting that even to this day the incidents where the US/British navy machine gunned submarine crews rather than save them is kept quiet. Or the camps of POW's that died of exposure following the war. Or many many other incidents, noted in the History books, but not part of mainstream reading.

Crimes of war are only publicised by the victors against the conquered. The Allies didn't promote their own crimes at any stage, nor have any western nation in subsequent wars/conflicts. We've all seen the pictures of vietnam, and yet very little if anything has been done about that. And now Afghanistan/Iraq, again with nothing really being done. And nothing is going to change with that.

Punishment for war crimes will only occur with the backing of the big players, and its not going to happen without that support. Simply put its a punishment meted out at choice, and not something that all nations/peoples are held accountable for.

vesp

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i suppose your right
we have already heard that the Queens forces didn't act quite as they should of in the Falklands.

What are you babbling about in the Falklands? Another poster has asked you to explain that comment but you failed to do so. The Argentinian forces have consistently said they were always well treated by the British in the Falklands. In fact the poor Argentian conscripts were better treated as pows by the British than many Argentinians were by their government. Fact.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

how long before we find out what war crimes are going on today in iraq.

As you are talking about the British forces, you will be probably waiting a long time, even though many thousands of individuals have served there from the UK. Most of the deaths / trouble there is caused by muslim on muslim violence eg Sunni versas Shia etc.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

vesp wrote:

As you are talking about the British forces, you will be probably waiting a long time,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1876432,00.html

"A corporal in the Duke of Lancaster's regiment became the first British soldier ever to be convicted of a war crime yesterday as a court martial heard that he and his colleagues systematically abused prisoners at a detention centre in southern Iraq.

One civilian was killed and others tormented brutally while officers, including the most senior to be brought before a court martial in modern times, did nothing to stop the abuse, it was claimed."

\m/_(>_<)_\m/, you're amazingly selective as to what you wish to respond to. :rolleyes:

Secondly, one soldier doesn't constitute the amount of crimes which you try to suggest. Show me three dozen links of proven crimes, and I might show some belief that your claims are accurate.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Deleted User wrote:

Secondly, one soldier doesn't constitute the amount of crimes which you try to suggest. Show me three dozen links of proven crimes, and I might show some belief that your claims are accurate.

for some people always an advantage to read the article before one comments on it,

it was more that one soldier

the crimes( one of which was homicide ) have already been proven in a court-martial, so forgive me if i'm not interested in your validation of this story

and only you can decide weather to believe documented fact as quoted in the article or not
but something tells me that fact and fiction is the same to you.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

for some people always an advantage to read the article before one comments on it,

Its an advantage to read what people post before commenting on it. :rolleyes: Here's a reminder.

Deleted User wrote:

Secondly, one soldier doesn't constitute the amount of crimes which you try to suggest. Show me three dozen links of proven crimes, and I might show some belief that your claims are accurate.

See? I don't see anything that questions the validity of the article, or that British soldiers have commited crimes.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

it was more that one soldier

But since you really want to talk about it;

1 soldier pleaded guilty to the charges. Simple. 1. The remaining 6 soldiers have not been proven guilty so can't be determined as being so. Since you're so definite on facts, lets keep it that way. Novel concept, isn't it?

So you have 1 soldier that has been proven guilty by his own admission. The rest isn't proven, until the court proves it as being so. That is fact. Innocent until proven guilty...

the crimes( one of which was homicide ) have already been proven in a court-martial, so forgive me if i'm not interested in your validation of this story

Actually I commented on your selective reponses, as evidenced once again with this post. I didn't refute the article, nor say that these soldiers were innocent. Nor did I say that no crimes were performed. I asked for more proof. Since you have made a number of statements regarding british soldiers and crimes, I asked for more than one incident.

and only you can decide weather to believe documented fact as quoted in the article or not
but something tells me that fact and fiction is the same to you.

Poor baby. Did I offend you when i asked for more than one source? Just because I suggested that one incident doesn't paint a military?

You like to talk about facts. Okies, Fact. You have one article about 7 soldiers who have been accused of crimes. One of them has admitted guilt. The rest have denied it, and the court case (per your own article) has not finished, and no guilt has been established.

I asked for more than one article. Or rather I asked for articles referring to more soldiers to show this widespread crime by British Soldiers.

Lastly, regarding fact and fiction, before you accuse other people, perhaps you should look to yourself first. In fact (no pun intended ), learn to read what people are actually posting, first. Then comment on it. Not on me, from a single question.

amp

Klax, please refrain from calling people babies. That is an attack on the poster and not the argument.

Back on topic.

Sorry, Amp. His "fact and fiction" comment annoyed the hell out out of me. Its actually an expression used amongst my friends, and I sometimes forget not to use it outside of that circle. Want me to edit the post?

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

Just because I suggested that one incident doesn't paint a military?

A military is a group of people.

Take any group of 50,000 people, give them €5 each and lock them in a big room. Come back an hour later and you'll find that a number of them have black eyes and no money, while others have grazed knuckles and lots of money.

Now give them all guns and drop them off in a foreign country.

What defines a military is the effort they go to in trying to identify those who abuse their power, and the punishment meted out to those found guilty.

The fact that they are carrying out this court martial is a mark strongly in favour of the British military.

The rest remains to be seen.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Gurgle wrote:

What defines a military is the effort they go to in trying to identify those who abuse their power, and the punishment meted out to those found guilty.

I disagree, from Wikipdia
While military can refer to any armed force, it generally refers to a permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained exclusively for the purpose of warfare...

nothing at all to do with handing down punishment.

Gurgle

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

I disagree, from Wikipdia
While military can refer to any armed force, it generally refers to a permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained exclusively for the purpose of warfare...

nothing at all to do with handing down punishment.

Thats excellent. Another pedantic nit-picking badge for your boy-scout uniform.

OK, what defines a military force's goodness or badness is the effort they go to in trying to identify those who abuse their power, and the punishment meted out to those found guilty.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Gurgle wrote:

Thats excellent. Another pedantic nit-picking badge for your boy-scout uniform.

that's it, when you know your wrong, try and insult the other party.

no point in discussing this any further, pity i was hoping for a adult discussion not a school ground petty slinging match.


:cool:

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

that's it, when you know your wrong, try and insult the other party.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/, you were nitpicking. Gurgle has a point in what he said.

no point in discussing this any further, pity i was hoping for a adult discussion not a school ground petty slinging match.
:cool:

Then why not reply to what I said, instead of taking a small part of Gurgles' post? Or even reply to the overall concept behind his post.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Deleted User wrote:

Then why not reply to what I said,

i do apologize, but i don't discusses anything with people who have to resort to personal insults to try and get their point across. It just shows they have no point.
and you have already been warned, so run along and try to get a reaction from somebody else by calling them silly names.


'Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.'

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

I was warned about saying "poor baby", which I apologise for. But you haven't responded to my actual post. In fact, you seem to be avoiding doing so, by only referring to intelligence, and name calling.

How about actually responding to the post, rather than sidestepping by saying we're (or I'm) not worthy discussing this with, simply because of an insult? Remember, this is your article, and your point that we're discussing.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

something tells me that fact and fiction is the same to you

You don't find that this is a little bit offensive, since you totally misrepresented what I actually posted about? And not even an apology or rebuttal to my post...

You yourself haven't avoided being a bit offensive in your own posts.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Deleted User wrote:

I was warned about saying "poor baby", which I apologise for. But you haven't responded to my actual post. In fact, you seem to be avoiding doing so, by only referring to intelligence, and name calling.

How about actually responding to the post, rather than sidestepping by saying we're (or I'm) not worthy discussing this with, simply because of an insult? Remember, this is your article, and your point that we're discussing.



You don't find that this is a little bit offensive, since you totally misrepresented what I actually posted about? And not even an apology or rebuttal to my post...

You yourself haven't avoided being a bit offensive in your own posts.

please refer to my previous post.

I give up. :rolleyes:

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

I give up. :rolleyes:

I gave up on page 2.

Lets go torture someone.