it would appear the allies were no angels

Fuinseog

German prisoners were murdered in cold blood by the Americans. I stumbled across an interview on youtube

"US forces execute German Pows account from WW2"


its very rare you hear such accounts.

Manic Moran

its very rare you hear such accounts.

Probably because instances were fewer in number.

Except on the Russian side. They didn't have the best reputation for good behaviour.

NTM

Fuinseog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Probably because instances were fewer in number.

Except on the Russian side. They didn't have the best reputation for good behaviour.

NTM

the bad russians.
when I see movies like 'saving private ryan' and 'band of others', where the americans adopt the moral highground on how they saved the world, I become cynical.
there are accounts of candians murdering german prisoners in the aftermath of D-Day, especially members of the Hitler Youth division. the 12th ss wore camouflage and were suspected of being snipers. therefore no quarther was given. the 12th did shoot candian prsioners and this is often mentioned, but not so much vice versa.

i don't know if the Brits were involved in war crimes. I know a young robert Maxwell murdered a german mayor when he told him he could order the volksturm to surrender.

getz

Fuinseog wrote: »

the bad russians.
when I see movies like 'saving private ryan' and 'band of others', where the americans adopt the moral highground on how they saved the world, I become cynical.
there are accounts of candians murdering german prisoners in the aftermath of D-Day, especially members of the Hitler Youth division. the 12th ss wore camouflage and were suspected of being snipers. therefore no quarther was given. the 12th did shoot candian prsioners and this is often mentioned, but not so much vice versa.

i don't know if the Brits were involved in war crimes. I know a young robert Maxwell murdered a german mayor when he told him he could order the volksturm to surrender.

yes the brits were involved in war crimes,i remember my father telling me that when he was in italy he was guarding a door that led into a bunker, a number of italian prisoners were being taken down into it,non were coming back out, he decided to go down to have a look why,the officer told him to get back up because he did not want him to see this, my dad always believed these italians were on the [must kill list] so in war not only the baddies commit war crimes

mike65

Robert Maxwell was Czech

It was war why the surprise? Or is this another pretence for a Brit-bash thread?

getz

it is a attempt at brit bashing,but the thread is obvious that in war, when both countries are bombing sh..t out of cities and civilians,isent that war crimes? you cannot open a egg without breaking the shell

getz

war crimes were commited against irish merchant seamen by the germans as well,ie being put into slave camps like the poles, see www.irishseamensrelativesassociation.org

marcsignal

getz wrote: »

war crimes were commited against irish merchant seamen by the germans as well,ie being put into slave camps like the poles, see www.irishseamensrelativesassociation.org

yep, my grandfather was an Irish merchant seaman and always spoke about this before he died in 1970.

as for american atrocities, well apart from firebombing Tokyo, and their part in Dresden, there are also these few little gems.

*from web*

First off the "Starvation at Remagen", where over 18,000 German POW's died of malnutrition and abuse.

During the invasion of Sicily in 1943, there was an investigation into soldiers of the U.S. 45th (Thunderbird) Division who was said to have killed more than 100 German prisoners at Comise airfield, Gela, Buttera airfield on seperate occasions. Two soldiers were accused of murder. Interestingly, this the same 45th Division would execute the guards at Dachau prison in April 1945.

Also the "Webling Atrocity" which was blamed on the 222nd Inf.Reg. of the 42nd Division. The story on this can be easily found through a search engine as well, but bear in mind while reading about it that only one day before this happened, Dachau Concentration Camp had been discovered, and some of the 222nd had seen the camp and the piles of dead bodies.

check out "The Rock of Anzio: The 45th Infantry Division in World War II" by Flint Whitlock.

Mike65 & getz are right, war is war, all the other things that bind a civilised society together are out the window, sadly.

interestingly, david irving writes quite a bit about this, and imo, i can't help feeling some of the hatred towards him has been fuelled by the british establishment, out of embarassment, and an easy way to try to silence him was to label him a 'holocaust denier' :rolleyes: instead.

FiSe

mike65 wrote: »

Robert Maxwell was Czech

Doesn't look like that to me :rolleyes:
From hatered wiki:
'Robert Maxwell was born Ján Ludvík Hoch in the small town of Slatinské Doly, Carpathian Ruthenia, the easternmost province of pre-World War II Czechoslovakia (now Solotvino, Ukraine)'Which means that he could be Slovak judging by the name, but his nationality could be Carpathian-Ruthenian...


Now to topic, when you put so many loaded guns into the hands of so many people. Can you imagine tracksuits from Tallagh or Southill in the army during the war?
Angels are in the church, I'm afraid...

Fratton Fred

FiSe wrote: »

Now to topic, when you put so many loaded guns into the hands of so many people. Can you imagine tracksuits from Tallagh or Southill in the army during the war?
Angels are in the church, I'm afraid...

you also have to consider that these guys had all been at war for (in a lot of cases) 6 years.

In the case of the French they not only had their own country invaded, but had also seen countless reprisals for the actions of the Marquis. You would have to be a very special kind of person not to want to carry out some sort of revenge against those who had, only weeks earlier, been machine gunning old women in the village square because of the a fuel train being blown up.

tricky D

Fyi Previous thread on Allied Attrocities

marcsignal

FiSe wrote: »

Can you imagine tracksuits from Tallagh or Southill in the army during the war?
Angels are in the church, I'm afraid...

absolutely :eek: they're bad enough in civvie street

tricky D wrote: »

Fyi Previous thread on Allied Attrocities

maybe mods can merge these ??

Zulu

Fuinseog wrote: »

its very rare you hear such accounts.

Shock horror! Allies were no angels in WW2!?!

You thought they were? Really - this is news to you?
Dropping two atomic bombs on civilians wasn't ropey?
Fire bombing dresden was ok?
Rounding up Japaneese civilians in America into camps was fine?

am I missing something?

getz

fire bombing dresden,the natzi started off the bombing,long before the brits hit them back,they even bombed dublin, during the war it wasent a game on some internet site ,it was for real kill them or they will kill you,the main reason the americans gave for dropping the bombs,was to save american lives,the japanese had no restrictions for killing any of the enemy, remember they believed that any prisioner who surendered was a traitor to his country,that was the japanese mind ,never forget the attack and rape of china ,and the natzi extermination camps[auschwitch]

Morlar

Here is some more useful (imo) information on Dresden

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/dresden-e.html

I have seen some pretty mindblowing before and after pictures taken from aerial reconnaisance planes but can't seem to find them anymore.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Here is some more useful (imo) information on Dresden

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/dresden-e.html

I have seen some pretty mindblowing before and after pictures taken from aerial reconnaisance planes but can't seem to find them anymore.

Dresden was shocking, no doubt about that. not sure where that article got its figures from though, it quotes 135,000 people died. De Spiegal (I presume a German newspaper is the best place to look) disagrees somewhat.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,581992,00.html

18,000 is still a massive number though.

It is good (and fitting) that Dresden and Coventry became twinned cities, it shows a lot of reconciliation.

getz

coventry vanished under a pile of cinders,as for the japanese being put into camps in america, the italians were also put into camps in the uk,one of my distant uncles[by marriage ] was put into a camp in bury lancashire then shipped to the isle of man for the duration of the war,only one problem the ship was hit by agerman torpedo and sank all were lost ,how unlucky was that ?

Zulu

getz wrote: »

fire bombing dresden,the natzi started off...

...but the point remains - it's hardly a surprise that the allies were no angels.

Fratton Fred

talking of bombing, I love this picture, it is an iconic symbol of London's defiance during the blitz

http://worldsfamousphotos.

getz

in the 70s i once went out with a french/canadian girl this was in quebec city,she often used to tell me the french/canadian version of general wolfes storming of quebec,at school she was told that the british bayoneted every living thing in the city even the cats and dogs,the idea if it dosent live it cannot shoot you in the back,war is not a game .only the winner is right

Morlar

Estimates on dresden vary - the report you mentioned said 18-25000. Other reports put it at over 135,000.

If Der spiegel mentioned a David Irving number would that make it a more reliable number?

It is one study and a contested one at that.

One factor which is relevant is that at that time in1945 it was a place where refugees fled to considering it had no military value. It is not surprising to me if there were no record of them. Dresden is just as politically charged as concentration camps, only with dresden the impetus is to lower the numbers unlike with kz camps.

Dublin_Gunner

getz wrote: »

fire bombing dresden,the natzi started off the bombing,long before the brits hit them back,they even bombed dublin, during the war it wasent a game on some internet site ,it was for real kill them or they will kill you,the main reason the americans gave for dropping the bombs,was to save american lives,the japanese had no restrictions for killing any of the enemy, remember they believed that any prisioner who surendered was a traitor to his country,that was the japanese mind ,never forget the attack and rape of china ,and the natzi extermination camps[auschwitch]

You must be the only person I've ever seen spell Nazi incorrectly.

Britain initially started bombing German cities after an attack on London, which I believe was made in error by the Germans.

The Brits retaliated the next day by bombing Berlin.

The rest as they say, is history.

The carpet bombing of German cities by the Allies was nearly as bad as any atrocity of the war.

While there are accounts of US soldiers killing some German soldiers in cold blood, you will find most of these were distinctly retaliatory too.

There was one case (can't remember exact details) where a US platoon was captured, and the German commander ordered their machine gunner to open up on them, killing most. Some fled back to their command post. A few days later, the US guys captured some Germans, and shot them.

Riskymove

Fuinseog wrote: »

when I see movies like 'saving private ryan' and 'band of others', where the americans adopt the moral highground on how they saved the world, I become cynical.

I think you should watch them again...i think both make references about the reality of war and how some bad things are done by all sides...and how war and killing can affect those who survive

BlackEdelweiss

I think the Americans handing over German POW's to the Russians was a **** thing to do, they should have shot them themselves and saved most of them from a terrible fate at the hands of the Russians.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Estimates on dresden vary - the report you mentioned said 18-25000. Other reports put it at over 135,000.

If Der spiegel mentioned a David Irving number would that make it a more reliable number?

It is one study and a contested one at that.

One factor which is relevant is that at that time in1945 it was a place where refugees fled to considering it had no military value. It is not surprising to me if there were no record of them. Dresden is just as politically charged as concentration camps, only with dresden the impetus is to lower the numbers unlike with kz camps.

what has david irving got to do with it? his agenda is to make out the Nazis were just a bunch of misunderstood rogues.

some reports put it at 500,000 people, but personally, i am more inclined to believe the report commissioned by the German government, which appears to have done most research.

32,000 people were killed in London during the blitz after 57 continuous days of bombing btw, I presume you are just as concerned over their deaths.

iceage

And I suppose the germans firing over a thousand V2's at britain during WWII was a big Whoops!:)

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what has david irving got to do with it? his agenda is to make out the Nazis were just a bunch of misunderstood rogues.

That is a matter of opinion & imo a misrepresentation. The point I made is that any publication can publish any figure, the fact of publication does not necessarily make the estimate correct.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

some reports put it at 500,000 people, but personally, i am more inclined to believe the report commissioned by the German government, which appears to have done most research.

I would agree that this report appears to have had more research put into it, I would also believe that this is a political issue and the impetus was to reduce the numbers over the majority of previous estimates, which is in effect is what has happened.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

32,000 people were killed in London during the blitz after 57 continuous days of bombing btw, I presume you are just as concerned over their deaths.

The question here is the parity of treatment they recieve is it not ? I have never downplayed civilian deaths in britain. If you think otherwise then point out where.

If the Germans had won the war instead of the allies do you think the numbers of dead in london and coventry would have gone down ? Honestly ??

I believe they would, I also believe that the focus would be on German civilian losses through terror bombing, starvation, and so on. Just because one side wins the war does not mean you ignore or downplay the crimes, atrocities etc committed by the winning side.

Delancey

I have always found it very interesting that at the Nuremburg trials Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz was found not guilty of the more serious charges he faced , had he been convicted he would probably have been executed . These charges related mainly to orders he had given U-Boat crews such as attacking ships without warning , not stopping to help survivors , etc ( all nasty Nazi stuff ).

Unfortunately for the prosecution the defence called the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet ( Admiral Nimitz ) who admitted he had given his sub crews identical orders - the judges could not convict Doenitz without implying Nimitz was also guilty of war crimes and thus Doenitz escaped the more serious charges.

Victors Justice ?

FiSe

Just a few points:
- Dublin was 'bombed' by mistake and only, what, 2 /?/ bombs fell on populated area, which is pretty 'good' achievement if we take into consideration a high number of German bombers in the area

- The German bombing of London and other UK cities is nothing in comparison to the allied bombing of Germany

- German submarines ceased helping survivors after one of the U-boots was attacked off the African shore while transporting survivors to the shore /can't remeber which one it was.../
- American subs in the Pacific had orders to eliminate any life power of the enemy

- Not trying downplay any of these, just saying for the record

meditraitor

The victors write the history of any conflict.... Im sure the allies carried out worse, they were human after all. But we will never hear about them.

2c

Dublin_Gunner

meditraitor wrote: »

The victors write the history of any conflict.... Im sure the allies carried out worse, they were human after all. But we will never hear about them.

2c

We do hear / have heard about them. But Allied campaigns were glorified.

i.e its ok for us to bomb the sh1t out of every major German city, and kill 100's of 1000's in the process.

But they drop a few bombs over this side and its an atrocity.

I'll just say 2 words - Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

OS119

FiSe wrote: »

- The German bombing of London and other UK cities is nothing in comparison to the allied bombing of Germany

not through lack of trying... the only reason that London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow and Portsmouth didn't get destroyed in way that Hamburg, Lubeck, Dresden or any other German City was destroyed was because of a serious German doctrinal error in not building a fleet of large, four-engined bombers.

no sympathy, the German public was quite happy when its armies were parked over most of Europe, and the German military (a very significant proportion of the German population) did nothing about Hitler when he was happily bombing left, right and centre.

i see the episode as being a salutory note in history about the dangers of parking your tanks on other peoples lawns...

Fratton Fred

FiSe wrote: »

- The German bombing of London and other UK cities is nothing in comparison to the allied bombing of Germany

Yes, but let's be clear, Germany didn't flatten more British cities not because they didn't want to, it was because they couldn't.

Also worth remembering that it wasn't the people of London, Coventry or Hull that were dragging jews, romas and the disablked out of their beds and sending them off to gas chambers.

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

i see the episode as being a salutory note in history about the dangers of parking your tanks on other peoples lawns...

Not everybody feels that civilian population should be intentionally targetted en masse resulting from their armies actions.

FYI your logic placed in a modern context is not a million miles from that of al qaida as regards israel or the USA.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, but let's be clear, Germany didn't flatten more British cities not because they didn't want to, it was because they couldn't.

Also worth remembering that it wasn't the people of London, Coventry or Hull that were dragging jews, romas and the disablked out of their beds and sending them off to gas chambers.

It is an over simplification to say that the only reason more british civilians did not die in ww2 was because the luftwaffe were unable to get at them.

It's also an oversimplification to accuse the entire german wartime civilian population of personal direct involvement in the deaths of roma or jews etc.

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

Not everybody feels that civilian population should be intentionally targetted en masse resulting from their armies actions.

FYI your logic placed in a modern context is not a million miles from that of al qaida as regards israel or the USA.

and?

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

and?

There is no 'and' - if there is a part of the post you do not understand then point it out.

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

It is an over simplification to say that the only reason more british civilians did not die in ww2 was because the luftwaffe were unable to get at them.

It's also an oversimplification to accuse the entire german wartime civilian population of personal direct involvement in the deaths of roma or jews etc.

a) no it isn't. they lacked the number of heavy bombers neccesary to undertake strategic air warfare. had the Luftwaffe had 1000 Lancasters in 1940 they would have used them - and probably forced the UK out of the war. they instead chose to concentrate on producing tactical bombers and use them for all missions. bad decision.

b) the unpleasentness of NASDAP was available for all to see long before 1933, not only did lots of Germans vote for them, but the other political parties gave them an easy ride, as did the media, industry, the Armed Forces and most of the churches. so it seems like a pretty large part of 1930's/40's Germany wasn't quite as hostile to them as perhaps they'd later like to make out... it didn't take all 80 million Germans to operate the death camps, but voting for, or being ambivalent towards, their creators and then doing nothing when the policy of subjugation was obvious for all to see, gives German society a very large weight of responsibility.

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

There is no 'and' - if there is a part of the post you do not understand then point it out.

i fully understand the post. hence 'and?'

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

i fully understand the post. hence 'and?'

Your take on this is that civilian populations are valid targets (ie it is correct to intentionally target them and not as collateral damage but for them to be the actual targets) on the basis of what their governments or armies do - mine isn't.

Yours is the kind of logic that is used by islamists to radicalise muslims into targetting civilians - I do not agree with your take on this either in a modern context or in the context of 1940's Germany. Simple as that.

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

a) no it isn't.

It plainly is. You are arguing that the german armed forces in ww2 killed as many british civilians as was within their power to do. This is a ridiculous position & one you have not proven.

OS119 wrote: »

...gives German society a very large weight of responsibility.

Saying the German civilian population have a 'weight of responsibility' does not prove your argument that it is valid or moral to intentionally destroy them. German civilians did not have 20/20 hindsight when they last voted in 1933 nor did the international community who by and large were favourable to the NSDAP party over the communists.

Dr Strange

OS119 wrote: »

... not only did lots of Germans vote for them, but the other political parties gave them an easy ride, as did the media, industry, the Armed Forces and most of the churches. so it seems like a pretty large part of 1930's/40's Germany wasn't quite as hostile to them as perhaps they'd later like to make out....

I don't think you quite understood what was happening at that time in Germany. That is evidenced by your throwing this kind of "blanket blame" on the whole of the German population.

OS119

Preusse wrote: »

I don't think you quite understood what was happening at that time in Germany. That is evidenced by your throwing this kind of "blanket blame" on the whole of the German population.

they were dirt poor, their society had fragmented and they had been humiliated by losing a major European land war that they had started, and they wanted to feel better about themselves.

they voted for/were ambivalent towards the guy who said he'd make them feel better - at the expense of everyone who had 'betrayed' them

what have i missed out?

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

It plainly is. You are arguing that the german armed forces in ww2 killed as many british civilians as was within their power to do. This is a ridiculous position & one you have not proven.



Saying the German civilian population have a 'weight of responsibility' does not prove your argument that it is valid or moral to intentionally destroy them. German civilians did not have 20/20 hindsight when they last voted in 1933 nor did the international community who by and large were favourable to the NSDAP party over the communists.

you have evidence that suggests that the Luftwaffe deliberately didn't bring its full force to bear during the Blitz, or that it avoided targets which, though militarily legitimate, would have involved unacceptable (to Germany) civilian casualties?

NASDAP policies - and their way of thinking - was obvious to anyone in the German Political scene of the early 1930's. that is pure, unadulterated fact, not hindsight. even after they secured power in 1933 they were in no way secure - the German military of the time thought they were quite vunerable up until about 1938/39. by 1937 there cannot have been any adult German who did not have an inkling that NASDAP were very bad news indeed - and yet nothing happened...

McArmalite

I remember watching a program about the Battle of britain. In it they stated that the Germans had flying boats clearly painted in red cross colours in order to land on the sea to pick up Luftwaffe pilots who had baled out. The RAF instructed their pilots to shoot down these red cross flying boats as they said they could possibly be used to gather intelligence.
Of course others will disagree, but to me it was a particularly blatant war crime.

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a program about the Battle of britain. In it they stated that the Germans had flying boats clearly painted in red cross colours in order to land on the sea to pick up Luftwaffe pilots who had baled out. The RAF instructed their pilots to shoot down these red cross flying boats as they said they could possibly be used to gather intelligence.
Of course others will disagree, but to me it was a particularly blatant war crime.

What was the name of the program, If I may ask?
Since WWI the Red Cross marking was clear identification of 'Shoot here' for both sides of the conflict. Nothing new.

OS119
they were dirt poor, their society had fragmented and they had been humiliated by losing a major European land war that they had started, and they wanted to feel better about themselves.

they voted for/were ambivalent towards the guy who said he'd make them feel better - at the expense of everyone who had 'betrayed' them

what have i missed out?

Yes that's what I've been told in school at the age of 7, but since than I realized that things are more complex.
The problem is, that majority of German population didn't feel like they had loose the war. At the end of the day, it was armistice not surrender.
German society was in utter chaos.
High unemployment, unbelievable state of the economy, unreal inflation, revolutions and contra-revolutions and so on...
It didn't help that Germany, in fact a bankrupt state, had to pay unrealistic reparations to France and Britain.

And at the end of the day if you have to choose from two evils, you choose the less threatening one and if your choice is split between Communists and Nazional Socialists, well I think that your choice is clear.
Apart from that, Nazis were more acceptable for industrialists and, of course military, which played very big part in German society.
Surprisingly, for some, The first few years of Nazi dictature brought stabilization and prosperity. And if you happened to be ordinary German, you'd think, that you've made a good choice...
But it was too late to do anything about it and I'm not disputing the costs of that prosperous years.

You might as well say, that people of Easter Europe are responsible and guilty for the rise of Reds after the war and for the cold war era and that Irish people are responsible and guilty for the rise of crime in Ireland, because they've voted in 'not so straight' party.

BTW I think that it could be good to refresh our memory with the 1932 and 1933 elections to Reichstag, I think that you can clearly see the race between Reds and Nazis:

REICHSTAG ELECTION
NOVEMBER 6 1932
Party vote %
National Socialist 11,737,000 33.1
Social Democratic 7,248,000 20.4
Communist 5,980,000 16.9
Center 4,231,000 11.9
Nationalist 2,959,000 8.8
Bavarian People's 1,095,000 3.1
Other parties 2,635,000 7.6


REICHSTAG ELECTION
MARCH 1933
Party vote %
National Socialist 17,277,000 43.9
Social Democratic 7,182,000 18.3
Communist 4,848,000 12.3
Center 4,425,000 11.7
Nationalist 3,137,000 8.0
Bavarian People's 1,074,000 2.7
Other parties 1,533,000 3.8

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Since WWI the Red Cross marking was clear identification of 'Shoot here' for both sides of the conflict. Nothing new.

The emblem of the International Red Cross is placed on humanitarian and medical vehicles and buildings to protect them from military attack on the battlefield since the Geneva Convention of 1864. To say it was " clear identification of 'Shoot here' for both sides of the conflict " is just bollox.

FiSe

Maybe...

Dr Strange

OS119 wrote: »

they were dirt poor, their society had fragmented and they had been humiliated by losing a major European land war that they had started, and they wanted to feel better about themselves.

they voted for/were ambivalent towards the guy who said he'd make them feel better - at the expense of everyone who had 'betrayed' them

what have i missed out?

I am afraid you have a completely twisted view of what happened at that time. I am not even going into the whole "who started WWII" thing.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a program about the Battle of britain. In it they stated that the Germans had flying boats clearly painted in red cross colours in order to land on the sea to pick up Luftwaffe pilots who had baled out. The RAF instructed their pilots to shoot down these red cross flying boats as they said they could possibly be used to gather intelligence.
Of course others will disagree, but to me it was a particularly blatant war crime.

to you of course it is.

your signature would imply that the british pilots were well within their rights though

"I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means. - Dan Breen"

gross hypocrisy from McArmalite, who'd have thought it eh?

OS119

Preusse wrote: »

I am afraid you have a completely twisted view of what happened at that time. I am not even going into the whole "who started WWII" thing.

so late 20's/early 30's Germany was rich, its society cohesive and it was perfectly happy that its territory had been reduced by 25%, it was forbidden to build submarines, military aircraft and warships over a certain tonnage, and was shelling out massive reparations to those who hadn't defeated it in 1918?

because, you know, i wouldn't want to get it wrong...