88 year old Nazi soldier charged over 1944 massacre.

Balaclava1991

An 88 year old veteran of the Waffen SS who was 19 years old at the time has been charged with crimes relating to the infamous massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane on June 10, 1944.

German prosecutors brought the charges against the suspect, known only as Werner C, for his alleged role in the slaughter of almost the entire population of the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane on June 10, 1944.

The prosecutor's office in Dortmund said it was charging him over the murder of 25 people, committed by a group, and with aiding and abetting the killing of hundreds more.

The Oradour massacre killed 642 people, including 205 children, in reprisals for the supposed kidnapping of a German officer by the French resistance.

After the war, Charles de Gaulle ordered the village to remain untouched and uninhabited as a memorial to Nazi cruelty and its victims.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/former-nazi-soldier-88-charged-over-massacre-in-1944-29900933.html

Some more background on the massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

The soldier would probably have been a member of SS-Sturmbannführer Adolf Diekmann's I. Battalion, 4th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment.

Many of these men including Diekmann himself were soon killed fighting Allied forces in Normandy.

boomchicawawa

The culprits were actually from the 2nd WSS 'Das Reich' who travelled up from the south of France to Normandy and as you say were mostly killed in 44. Diekmann is actually buried in La Cambe German cemetery in Normandy, that was one grave I didn't want to visit while there last summer.

I have been to Oradour as it stands today, left untouched as a monument to Nazi brutality. The opening credits from 'The world at war' feature the ruins of the town.

I sometimes wonder about putting these old men on trial but I suppose its a lesson to all that the long arm of the law can stretch over many decades and I'm sure the families of the dead are still interested in getting some justice for what happened, although I'm sure it will be the same old defence of 'following orders'.

Balaclava1991

boomchicawawa wrote: »

The culprits were actually from the 2nd WSS 'Das Reich' who travelled up from the south of France to Normandy and as you say were mostly killed in 44. Diekmann is actually buried in La Cambe German cemetery in Normandy, that was one grave I didn't want to visit while there last summer.

I have been to Oradour as it stands today, left untouched as a monument to Nazi brutality. The opening credits from 'The world at war' feature the ruins of the town.

I sometimes wonder about putting these old men on trial but I suppose its a lesson to all that the long arm of the law can stretch over many decades and I'm sure the families of the dead are still interested in getting some justice for what happened, although I'm sure it will be the same old defence of 'following orders'.

2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich was organized thus in 1944-1945:

2nd SS Panzer Regiment
3rd SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment Deutschland
4th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment Der Führer
2nd SS Panzer Artillery Regiment
2nd SS Motorcycle Battalion
2nd SS Sturmgeschütz Battalion
2nd SS Reconnaissance Battalion
2nd SS Panzerjager Battalion
2nd SS Flak Battalion
2nd SS Pionier Battalion
2nd SS Signal Battalion
2nd SS Rocket Launcher Battalion
2nd SS Supply Battalion
2nd SS Maintenance Battalion
2nd SS Medical Battalion

Anyway I digress.

Hell is not hot enough for what those Nazi bastards did.

BlaasForRafa

boomchicawawa wrote: »

I sometimes wonder about putting these old men on trial but I suppose its a lesson to all that the long arm of the law can stretch over many decades and I'm sure the families of the dead are still interested in getting some justice for what happened, although I'm sure it will be the same old defence of 'following orders'.

Oradour was a terrible crime but if this man is going on trial then pretty much any survivor of bomber command should go on trial for similar crimes.

boomchicawawa

fort

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oradour was a terrible crime but if this man is going on trial then pretty much any survivor of bomber command should go on trial for similar crimes.

I understand your sentiment and I feel a thread on 'Allied War Crimes' would be a worthy endeavour, having looked into this recently and seeing only one side being brought to justice, I would be more than happy to contribute to it.

However, I'm sure you don't want to go off topic here as Oradour does not deserve to be side lined. Having seen the Church were the women and children were murdered and the alter behind which so many of the little bodies were found, its a salutary lesson as to the depths that humans can sink to.

I was looking at some of the details of the atrocity again and found an interesting parallel to a similar war crime I investigated last Summer. The investigation was about a village in Ukraine called Jefremowka, the accusation was against the Recon Btln of the 1st SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LSAH). One of the pieces of evidence I found was an tapped conversation from a German POW who 'heard' the story, he maintained that the men of the village were brought to a church and a machine gun was set up which fired low only getting the men at the front, those at the back had naturally thrown themselves to the floor but were uninjured, then petrol was called for and these men doused and set alight, the men were burnt alive, the woman and children killed after, method unknown......

..........in the details of Oradour, there was evidence given that the same thing happened there, the men lined up and shots fired low, the survivors being doused in petrol.......In this case the woman and children were brought to the church, machine gunned, killed with grenades and then the church set alight.

The interesting thing is that both the WSS 1st LSAH and 2nd 'Das Reich' fought side by side on the Eastern front for the battle of Kharkov in 43 were the attack on Jefremowka happened, so this same method seems to have been adopted there . There is evidence that both of these atrocities were in retaliation for 'partisan' activity in the localities, the result in both cases being the murder of every man, woman and child in the villages concerned in the most brutal and inhumane fashion.

Ardennes1944

Dresden.

Balaclava1991

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oradour was a terrible crime but if this man is going on trial then pretty much any survivor of bomber command should go on trial for similar crimes.

There is a hell of a difference between Allied bomber crews risking behind shot down by German fighters or German AAA guns to bomb a city which was a major transit point for German ground forces and a group of enraged Nazi fanatics herding men women and children into buildings and burning them alive.
The aim of the firebombing of German cities was to try to force the German people to surrender.
Millions of people died needlessly in 1944-1945 while the Germans continued fighting to the end. The SS continued to murder people right up until the end even though they knew Nazi Germany was doomed.
Any and all means necessary should have been used and were used to try and bring the terrible war to an end sooner.
As Bomber Harris said, the Germans had sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Ghastly things were done by the Allies to crush Nazi Germany but they crimes of the Nazis more than justify what was done to the Germans.
The men who flew mission after mission after mission to rain bombs on German cities were heroes.
The Nazis who slaughtered millions were utterly degenerate and evil.
To make any comparison between the Allies and the Axis monsters is grotesque.

BlaasForRafa

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is a hell of a difference .

The only difference is that one is doing it from 20 thousand feet up and the other is doing it from 20 feet.

The men who flew mission after mission after mission to rain bombs on German cities were heroes.

This idea that all british personnel were heroes is pretty juvenile, do you get your opinions from Warlord and Commando comics or something?

@boomchicawawa - In addition to LSSAH's recon unit, wasn't it Peiper's 3rd battalion that were called "the blowtorch battalion" for their proclivity for burning down villages? And later was involved in more well known atrocities like Malmedy.

Some Waffen SS unit leaders seemed to have a willingness to prosecute a "total war" that went beyond the boundaries of any kind of rational morality. I wonder if this was due to ideology and indoctrination or brutalising experiences on the eastern front.

boomchicawawa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

@boomchicawawa - In addition to LSSAH's recon unit, wasn't it Peiper's 3rd battalion that were called "the blowtorch battalion" for their proclivity for burning down villages? And later was involved in more well known atrocities like Malmedy.

Some Waffen SS unit leaders seemed to have a willingness to prosecute a "total war" that went beyond the boundaries of any kind of rational morality. I wonder if this was due to ideology and indoctrination or brutalising experiences on the eastern front.

Yes, you're quite right about Peiper and in fact there is a Russian Document that I uncovered that indicates that the Russians suspected Peiper for the killing in Jefremowka, I had to investigate his movements and rule him out. The killing took place on the 17th Feb 1943, there is a memorial to the dead in the village, I placed Kurt Meyer in the village on the day in question as I had details from the LSAH's own records for their movements. I also found 3 German POWs whose evidence was very interesting, none were there but each one gave details that intertwined with each other and all pointed the finger at Kurt Meyers btln. I have sent the whole book of evidence to Jefremowka in November as I feel that should have all the facts.

Yes, the war on the Eastern front was brutal with both sides criss crossing various villages and burning and killing the inhabitants, in fact Peiper wasn't the only one thought to have done it, Russian forces were also suspected. The brutalisation of the LSAH at this time is often blamed for the excesses of the 12th Hitler Jugend in Normandy in 44, and as shown, by the 2nd Das Reich at Oradour. I have POW testimony that mentions Peipers blow torch btln, I'm not sure if it was the original accusation against him, but this testimony was taken before Malmady when Peiper became more well known. He always maintained that the blowtorch insignia was innocent :rolleyes: ..... I have yet to find details of a specific village he targeted on the eastern front, as I say, the Russians think it was Jefremowka and I have seen that accusation repeated on other forums, but I'm 100% sure it was not him. Perhaps I could dig for evidence on him .......;)

Balaclava1991

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The only difference is that one is doing it from 20 thousand feet up and the other is doing it from 20 feet.

Rubbish. The Germans were firing back from fighter planes and AAA guns and many of those killed on the ground were factory workers who built the tanks and planes and guns used to conquer Europe.
The SS scum who machine gunned naked people into mass graves had nobody shooting back at them.

This idea that all british personnel were heroes is pretty juvenile, do you get your opinions from Warlord and Commando comics or something?

I get my opinions from historians such as Max Hastings. Bombing German cities was the ONLY way of directly striking at the heart of Germany between June 1940 until June 1944. Tens of thousands of airmen climbed into planes knowing that their lives were now measures in months at best. Those men helped to smash Hitler's Reich to bits and they gave their lives for our freedom today.

If you can't tell the difference between their heroism and Nazi thugs with submachine guns gunning down helpless civilians you not only are juvenile you have no moral compass whatsoever.

Some Waffen SS unit leaders seemed to have a willingness to prosecute a "total war" that went beyond the boundaries of any kind of rational morality. I wonder if this was due to ideology and indoctrination or brutalising experiences on the eastern front.

Both. There is a direct evolutionary link between the Nazi thugs who beat up Jews, Communists and Social Democrats on the streets of German cities and the rampaging Nazi armies who destroyed Europe. Nazism went from one extreme to the next as Hitler's poison seeped from his own infected mind to his corrupted morally bankrupt inner circle and then into the minds of every German man woman and child rendering barbarians.

In the end Germany had to be turned into a sea of fire.

BlaasForRafa

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Rubbish. The Germans were firing back from fighter planes.

Yeah, all those housewives and children who were murdered were flying BF110s at the time then....yeah....

Bombing German cities was the ONLY way of directly striking at the heart of Germany

It was terror bombing, pure and simple. They resorted to these methods because the british army got its ass kicked any time they didn't have a massive advantage over the Germans.

If you can't tell the difference between their heroism and Nazi thugs with submachine guns gunning down helpless civilians you not only are juvenile you have no moral compass whatsoever.

Dropping incendiary bombs onto women and children was really heroic. The victors write the history and the victors get to decide who gets justice and who doesn't. Bomber command personnel were as guilty as any in the Waffen SS.

In the end Germany had to be turned into a sea of fire.

The Nazis had to be defeated but you seem to glory in the murder of civilians a little too much.

boomchicawawa

Well, as it seems there is not going to be a new thread on this issue,so I'll put my tuppence worth in.

The ideology of National Socialism is abhorrent to me, the treatment of the Jews and others was inhuman and barbaric, the war on the Eastern Front especially brutal and without mercy, the enslaving of lands and people was a war crime, the Allied victory being righteous ...... But ....

I have grave reservations about the policy of bombing German cities to oblivion, especially post Jan 45 when it was obvious to all that the German war machine was on its last legs....

Having grown up bombarded with images of London's valiant stand in the blitz, the footage of the bombed out streets and the casualties, the fire storms etc it was a sobering experience to learn that German cities suffered in one night the tonnage that London had suffered over the course of the whole war......

This is a view I hold, others it seems don't feel this way and that is your prerogative, I suppose its down to each individuals moral compass or our ability to rationalise a situation for that particular time and not from a perspective 70 years later when time and distance may distort our views. I don't intend to get into a debate about the justification of these bombings, my views are unshakable.

I have never been of the view that there were only devils on one side and angels on the other. I have seen to much evidence of Allied atrocities and cover ups, no trials, no justice for the dead that should have been protected by the Geneva convention but on the other side, trials and retribution for the exact same crimes. As one Canadian General put it 'The evidence of our excesses lie buried safely behind our lines' (Meeting of Generals, Tony Foster 1982)

Red Nissan

I am surprised at this. I cannot find side to press on as I agree with both arguments.

I have loaded up The World At War since I saw this thread and am on episode 10 by this am.

boomchicawawa

Red Nissan wrote: »

I am surprised at this. I cannot find side to press on as I agree with both arguments.

I have loaded up The World At War since I saw this thread and am on episode 10 by this am.[/QUOTE

The 'World at War' was made in the early '70s and includes interviews with some of the main 'movers and shakers' of the time, I watched it as a child and it instilled in me an everlasting fascination with this dark period in our history.....In my opinion it has stood the test of time.......

Balaclava1991

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Well, as it seems there is not going to be a new thread on this issue,so I'll put my tuppence worth in.

The ideology of National Socialism is abhorrent to me, the treatment of the Jews and others was inhuman and barbaric, the war on the Eastern Front especially brutal and without mercy, the enslaving of lands and people was a war crime, the Allied victory being righteous ...... But ....

I have grave reservations about the policy of bombing German cities to oblivion, especially post Jan 45 when it was obvious to all that the German war machine was on its last legs....

Having grown up bombarded with images of London's valiant stand in the blitz, the footage of the bombed out streets and the casualties, the fire storms etc it was a sobering experience to learn that German cities suffered in one night the tonnage that London had suffered over the course of the whole war......

This is a view I hold, others it seems don't feel this way and that is your prerogative, I suppose its down to each individuals moral compass or our ability to rationalise a situation for that particular time and not from a perspective 70 years later when time and distance may distort our views. I don't intend to get into a debate about the justification of these bombings, my views are unshakable.

I have never been of the view that there were only devils on one side and angels on the other. I have seen to much evidence of Allied atrocities and cover ups, no trials, no justice for the dead that should have been protected by the Geneva convention but on the other side, trials and retribution for the exact same crimes. As one Canadian General put it 'The evidence of our excesses lie buried safely behind our lines' (Meeting of Generals, Tony Foster 1982)

The Germans deserved everything that was coming to them and more.

The priority was to try and end the war faster and the Allies had thousands and thousands of bombers and tens of thousands of airmen so they used them to take the war into the heart of Germany.

Did it really bring the war to an end sooner? It's debatable.

If anything Allied morale had to be maintained and while they waited for D-Day and the ground invasion of Europe, something had to be done or seen to be done and that was the bombing of German cities.

The mass murder of millions of Russians and Slavs and the Holocaust of the Jews and the oppression of the entire continent by a vast military machine had to have consequences for the Nazis.

For almost 70 years Germany has been kept in their box. They now produce great porn and beer.

Similarly the Japanese are gentle harmless people today more interested in sweet voiced pop singers and weird TV shows than slaughtering and murdering millions.

Thanks to the brutal retribution they suffered in World War 2.

Wibbs

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The only difference is that one is doing it from 20 thousand feet up and the other is doing it from 20 feet.

There's one very big difference. The bombings stopped when Germany surrendered, the nazi killings went on after countries and people surrendered. If the Nazi's had won the war do you think they would have stopped their killings of those they considered enemies?

BlaasForRafa

Wibbs wrote: »

There's one very big difference. The bombings stopped when Germany surrendered, the nazi killings went on after countries and people surrendered. If the Nazi's had won the war do you think they would have stopped their killings of those they considered enemies?

A war crime is a war crime whether the victim has surrendered or not.

riffmongous

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Germans deserved everything that was coming to them and more.

The priority was to try and end the war faster and the Allies had thousands and thousands of bombers and tens of thousands of airmen so they used them to take the war into the heart of Germany.

Did it really bring the war to an end sooner? It's debatable.

If anything Allied morale had to be maintained and while they waited for D-Day and the ground invasion of Europe, something had to be done or seen to be done and that was the bombing of German cities.

The mass murder of millions of Russians and Slavs and the Holocaust of the Jews and the oppression of the entire continent by a vast military machine had to have consequences for the Nazis.

For almost 70 years Germany has been kept in their box. They now produce great porn and beer.

Similarly the Japanese are gentle harmless people today more interested in sweet voiced pop singers and weird TV shows than slaughtering and murdering millions.

Thanks to the brutal retribution they suffered in World War 2.

Where do you get this **** from?

riffmongous

Wibbs wrote: »

There's one very big difference. The bombings stopped when Germany surrendered, the nazi killings went on after countries and people surrendered. If the Nazi's had won the war do you think they would have stopped their killings of those they considered enemies?

But I think that just means that one side was worse than the other, which no sane person would deny, but it doesn't mean that some of what the allies did wasn't wrong or evil.

Balaclava1991

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A war crime is a war crime whether the victim has surrendered or not.

What alternative had the Allies? The Nazis were butchering millions of people.
Every option had to be used to try and bring down Nazi Germany.
If they could have shortened the war with bombing raids why shouldn't they have used it?
The morale of the German people had to be completely broken and the bombing turned their cities into ashes.
Ultimately the Nazis were crushed when the Red Army blasted their way into the center of Berlin with the loss of millions of lives.
The Allies had nothing but bad choices to make.
Should they fight for every inch of ground and drag the war on into the late 1940s or even the 1950s or else flatten every German cities and break the backs of the Nazis?

Balaclava1991

riffmongous wrote: »

But I think that just means that one side was worse than the other, which no sane person would deny, but it doesn't mean that some of what the allies did wasn't wrong or evil.

What alternative did the Allies have but to use evil means to defeat an even greater evil? Churchill and FDR made their Stalin their ally knowing full well what fate lay in store for Eastern Europe. They had to win and that was that. You cannot afford to be less ruthless than your enemy just because your intentions are benevolent.

Balaclava1991

riffmongous wrote: »

Where do you get this **** from?

Can you refute anything I've said?

kabakuyu

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Can you refute anything I've said?

Great porn? please do tell.

riffmongous

kabakuyu wrote: »

Great porn? please do tell.

And they've always made great beer

BlaasForRafa

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

What alternative did the Allies have but to use evil means to defeat an even greater evil? Churchill and FDR made their Stalin their ally knowing full well what fate lay in store for Eastern Europe. They had to win and that was that. You cannot afford to be less ruthless than your enemy just because your intentions are benevolent.

Bulls**t that's just a specious justification for war crimes against civilians. The american attacks on german oil production facilities did FAR more to cripple the german war machine that RAF terror bombing ever did.

Dyr

Don't suppose there's any chance of a court putting the members of the 20th infantry up in front of it for the my lai massacre?

Morality and justice eh?

longhalloween

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bulls**t that's just a specious justification for war crimes against civilians. The american attacks on german oil production facilities did FAR more to cripple the german war machine that RAF terror bombing ever did.

Worth a listen if you have time. He details the rationale of firebombing civilians and how it was justified in the context of the war.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/Second%20World%20War-World%20War%20Two-World%20War%20One

It gets fairly intense when he reads survivor accounts.

riffmongous

longhalloween wrote: »

Worth a listen if you have time. He details the rationale of firebombing civilians and how it was justified in the context of the war.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/Second%20World%20War-World%20War%20Two-World%20War%20One

Can you sum it up for us?

longhalloween

riffmongous wrote: »

Can you sum it up for us?

Not really.

I couldn't do it justice.

fergus1001

For any one trying to defend the Americans and British I will make one point and one point only


They turned hundreds of people women and children into shadows on walls in Japan
And killed thousands more

War never changes

"the sky was blue but there was no god''

longhalloween

fergus1001 wrote: »

They turned hundreds of people women and children into shadows on walls in Japan
And killed thousands more
'

If you're killing tens of thousands a day anyways, does it matter whether you use thousands of bombs or just one.

Red Nissan

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

What alternative had the Allies?

It's not the easiest question to answer when one keeps in mind that the American Administration and public opinion at the outbreak of war was to side with Germany and Germany was seen as the economic future of Europe [back then they saw this].

Churchill wanted to prolong the war for another year ~ he wanted "D Day" [France] to be in the Summer of 1945 ~ he was summarily dismissed by Roosevelt and Stalin who then pursued the war with effectively no British intervention.

fergus1001

longhalloween wrote: »

If you're killing tens of thousands a day anyways, does it matter whether you use thousands of bombs or just one.

Whether you use many bombs or just one it is still a war crime

Its the insane logic of this war that perplexed me

Balaclava1991

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bulls**t that's just a specious justification for war crimes against civilians. The american attacks on german oil production facilities did FAR more to cripple the german war machine that RAF terror bombing ever did.

The Allied commanders believed that the means was there to break the morale of the German people. Why not use it? The war could be brought right to the front door of the enemy.

Red Nissan

longhalloween wrote: »

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/Second%20World%20War-World%20War%20Two-World%20War%20One

.

Very intense. Took me three days to wade through it, in the end I'm left [after one listening] like someone who has gone around in a circle.

No real answers but it does explain how Germany's Blitzkrieg [Motorised and mechanised troop supported by sea and air] came up against WW1 cavalry on many fronts at the beginning.

riffmongous

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Allied commanders believed that the means was there to break the morale of the German people. Why not use it? The war could be brought right to the front door of the enemy.

Because you can justify anything with that sort of logic.. I can understand your point in a military context, or a victory context, but I think that sort of morality-less logic can and is used by anyone who wants to use it, 'The end justifies the means' is an incredibly dangerous phrase

longhalloween

riffmongous wrote: »

'The end justifies the means' is an incredibly dangerous phrase

It is, but when you're faced with losing hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen in a long war of attrition against the Japanese, the choice of ending it quickly with the deaths of 250,000 Japanese lives and none of your own becomes are very appealing option.

I recently spoke to a Vietnam vet when I visited the memorial in Washington and he was raging that nukes weren't used against the Vietnamese as soon as the war broke out.

In his eyes, 50,000 American lives were worth much more than 500,000 Vietnamese communists lives.

Balaclava1991

riffmongous wrote: »

Because you can justify anything with that sort of logic.. I can understand your point in a military context, or a victory context, but I think that sort of morality-less logic can and is used by anyone who wants to use it, 'The end justifies the means' is an incredibly dangerous phrase

The air campaign tied down massive Nazi resources in planes, artillery and manpower who otherwise would have been used to delay the Red Army on the Eastern Front costing more lives and prolonging the suffering of the European continent.
The bombing turned much of Germany into a shambles which made it increasingly difficult for the Germans to continue fighting.
Did it deliver the killer blow?
No.
But it was worth trying.
It would have been immoral not to use every means necessary to win.
It is immoral not to try to shorten a war.
It is immoral to fight a humane war in the face of brutality and evil like that of Hitler and the Nazis because when there is too much restraint there is no end to the conflict and no conclusive victory and there is greater human suffering not less.
Without trashing the Nazi Reich it is likely the war could have continued for months longer or even years longer.
In a war where tens of thousands were dying EVERY SINGLE DAY there was an immense responsibility on the Allied leader to win.

The 88 year old rat who murdered all those innocent people all those decades ago deserves his trial. He and millions of Nazis who unlike him thankfully died had to be defeated by fair means or foul. They brought it on their heads.

riffmongous

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The bombing turned much of Britain/USA/Russia into a shambles which made it increasingly difficult for the Britain/USA/Russia to continue fighting.
Did it deliver the killer blow?
No.
But it was worth trying.
It would have been immoral not to use every means necessary to win.
It is immoral not to try to shorten a war.
It is immoral to fight a humane war in the face of brutality and evil

Sorry for modifying your post like that but look hey presto you've got a justification for any terrorist attack committed within the last 20 years, which was the point I was trying to make earlier. While you can justify the immoral acts that took place in WW2, as soon as you surrender the moral high ground you can't retake it so easily

longhalloween

riffmongous wrote: »

Sorry for modifying your post like that but look hey presto you've got a justification for any terrorist attack committed within the last 20 years, which was the point I was trying to make earlier. While you can justify the immoral acts that took place in WW2, as soon as you surrender the moral high ground you can't retake it so easily

Britain and the US were nowhere near as badly damaged as mainland Europe.

The London blitz caused 40,000 casulaties in 8 months.

German cities were losing that in a night.

The US had an attack on Pearl Harbour and that was about the height of it.

Russian cities were repeatedly bombed, but nowhere near the extent of German cities.

Unfortunately in war morality goes out the window and the victors are never punished for their deeds.

riffmongous

longhalloween wrote: »

Britain and the US were nowhere near as badly damaged as mainland Europe.

The London blitz caused 40,000 casulaties in 8 months.

German cities were losing that in a night.

The US had an attack on Pearl Harbour and that was about the height of it.

Russian cities were repeatedly bombed, but nowhere near the extent of German cities.

Unfortunately in war morality goes out the window and the victors are never punished for their deeds.

I meant in the last 20 years, that sort of reasoning can be twisted by anyone

beauf

70 decades of hindsight is a wonderful thing. I wonder how our actions will be looked after another 70yrs for things we have limited knowledge of. Considering peoples idea of morality and the social norms may be very different than they are now.

Red Nissan

The theme running through the audio book was justification for terrorist acts like carpet bombing was that it might save many times that in your own lives.

That theme can explain the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane also from the German perspective.

Hitler ultimately lost the war because he never planned and designed an airforce to carpet bomb cities.

beauf

Red Nissan wrote: »

...Hitler ultimately lost the war because he never planned and designed an airforce to carpet bomb cities.

Can't say I agree with that. He lost because he over extended himself, declared war on countries with greater resources than he had.

People overstate the effectiveness and usefulness of carpet bombing. The current thinking seems to it was useful to consume resources. But thats a double edged sword. As the allied used vast resources themselves to achieve that.

Manhattan project was 2 billion plus
B-29 was 3 billion

Wibbs

Red Nissan wrote: »

Hitler ultimately lost the war because he never planned and designed an airforce to carpet bomb cities.

There's certainly an element of truth to this. He may well have lost the war anyway(definitely the second he crossed into Russia), but it would have been a far harder ask if the Nazi's had strategic bombing. The Luftwaffe of WW2 essentially grew out of the army. It was much more an adjunct to the army than a wholly separate arm. You can see this with the bomber designs. They were nearly all tactical in nature, not strategic. Highly effective mobile artillery, tanks of the sky, for the army to come thundering in behind.

This is one big reason why they were so damned successful on land in the early stages. Their opponents didn't have anything like a tactical airforce. The Battle of Britain changed the game. Now they had a water barrier to their army tactics. If the English channel hadn't existed then going by the utter rout of the British and French forces in Europe, the Germans would likely have taken England within a month.

Goering's notion that he could win this battle by air power alone was looked on with great suspicion by his own side, precisely because while they knew it's incredible tactical advantage they also well knew it's strategic limitations. Take one example; the Ju 87 Stuka. It was a real game changer in land battles. Even though a slow old design it caused havoc in the later operation Barbarossa in the Soviet Union. Ditto for the battle for Greece and France. (One story shows this effect. A bunch of Germans were guarding/marching a load of French soldiers who'd surrendered. A couple of German guys were on the side of the road observing this and one of the guards shouted out what outfit were they from and they shouted back "stukas". With that the French prisoners, though under guard dove off the road into the margins in sheer terror). But it was able to do this if they had air superiority or fighter support. It was very vulnerable to modern fighters*

Even then it was a close run thing, or actually seems to be and was made out to be since. Yes the luftwaffe won the battle of the English channel essentially closing down it and it's ports to traffic. However they were never gonna win the battle of Britain itself that would allow an invasion. The British were producing more aircraft, had more fighters, radar, range, were over home ground and even if the Germans had invaded they could have just moved north and continued to fight. Plus the German invasion fleet largely consisted of glorified canal barges which would have been cut to pieces on any crossing. If the Germans had strategic bombers and fighters that could support them it would have been a very different outcome IMH. Then again they were building what they could afford to build aiming at a European land war based on Blitzkrieg. Britain was considered almost a sideline, a hopeful/possible noncombatant in the war to come.



*though again there is some post war exaggeration here too. Across all fronts of the war it was ground anti aircraft fire that was responsible for most downings. It's a given fact of the time that bombers needed fighter cover like a fish needs water, but an unprotected Stuka was a better bet to get home than an unprotected Heinkel. Far more maneuverable and could get out of trouble more easily. Even in the BoB quite the number of JU87 jockeys got home by maneuvering away, or going into a steep dive that few fighter pilots could follow with out overspeeding. One tactic was to actually turn towards the fighters as this tended to have the effect of freaking out their attackers seeing this much bigger aircraft coming towards them. Or the mad idea one squadron had was the rear gunners throwing toilet rolls out the back when engaged by fighters. Apparently this really put the wind up the attackers. It seems that seeing these white ribbons flying down they thought it was some Nazi secret weapon. This plan was scuppered when the supply depots gave them bogrolls that were individual sheets (Memoirs of a Stuka Pilot by Helmut Mahlke)

beauf

This thread is soooo far off topic .....

BowWow

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The 88 year old rat who murdered all those innocent people all those decades ago deserves his trial.

Not much hope of a fair trial here................

Das Reich

I am from South America and I don't understand how Irish people talk about Germany and their "crimes" on WWII. They were treated as second class people in the USA on the same way as the blacks. England closed the ports during the famine, and Irish people still defend England and USA :eek:

War criminals are the ones who did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the ones that killed 1 million civilians in Iraq since 2003.

boomchicawawa

Das Reich wrote: »

I am from South America and I don't understand how Irish people talk about Germany and their "crimes" on WWII. They were treated as second class people in the USA on the same way as the blacks. England closed the ports during the famine, and Irish people still defend England and USA :eek:

War criminals are the ones who did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the ones that killed 1 million civilians in Iraq since 2003.

Why do you put the word 'crimes' in inverted commas ? In Oradour women and children was machine gunned in a church, and then the church was set on fire... you think this was part of war ? I beg to differ in the strongest terms and call it was it was, a brutal War Crime.

This warped logic is alien to me. Please don't insult me with trying to justify one countries record against another's. It doesn't wash with me, a crime is a crime. Murder is murder. I don't care what country is involved.

As I've posted previously, I'm in the middle of such a discussion on another forum about crimes against German POWs who were murdered after surrendering. Me calling this action a war crime (which is was) has made some posters taunt that I support the 'WSS' against the Allies, or that Germany's record was 'worse' and anything the Allies did back was justified and probably just part of war. You see, they feel the same as you, just in the opposite camp and both your points of view are twisted.

I call it as I see it, Germany and the Allies both committed war crimes (note no inverted commas) ......FACT... one countries crimes will never justify the others.

PS: I usually only post arguments based on what has been said as attacking someones motivations for posting is something I consider the lowest form of argument, but it has to be said that choosing the tag 'Das Reich' leaves me with the impression that you have little interest in being objective on this subject....And by the by, you forgot about the war criminals who killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust in your last sentence.

Das Reich

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Why do you put the word 'crimes' in inverted commas ? In Oradour women and children was machine gunned in a church, and then the church was set on fire... you think this was part of war ? I beg to differ in the strongest terms and call it was it was, a brutal War Crime.

This warped logic is alien to me. Please don't insult me with trying to justify one countries record against another's. It doesn't wash with me, a crime is a crime. Murder is murder. I don't care what country is involved.

As I've posted previously, I'm in the middle of such a discussion on another forum about crimes against German POWs who were murdered after surrendering. Me calling this action a war crime (which is was) has made some posters taunt that I support the 'WSS' against the Allies, or that Germany's record was 'worse' and anything the Allies did back was justified and probably just part of war. You see, they feel the same as you, just in the opposite camp and both your points of view are twisted.

I call it as I see it, Germany and the Allies both committed war crimes (note no inverted commas) ......FACT... one countries crimes will never justify the others.

PS: I usually only post arguments based on what has been said as attacking someones motivations for posting is something I consider the lowest form of argument, but it has to be said that choosing the tag 'Das Reich' leaves me with the impression that you have little interest in being objective on this subject....And by the by, you forgot about the war criminals who killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust in your last sentence.

I am happy to know that you were there and saw everything and are not just copying/paste post-war anglo-american propaganda. If it happened as you said, I would like to see all those germans executed and paid for their crimes. But... who know if things really happened like this?

PS: Holocaust, death by fire, is happening now in Gaza, Siria, and other countries that stand against american-israeli imperialism. About the 6 millions, it was already a number choosed by Theodor Herzl in the XIX century to create a country zionist country in Palestine, Hitler was not yet born.

http://zioncrimefactory.com/the-six-million-myth/

boomchicawawa

Das Reich wrote: »

I am happy to know that you were there and saw everything and are not just copying/paste post-war anglo-american propaganda. If it happened as you said, I would like to see all those germans executed and paid for their crimes. But... who know if things really happened like this?

PS: Holocaust, death by fire, is happening now in Gaza, Siria, and other countries that stand against american-israeli imperialism. About the 6 millions, it was already a number choosed by theodor Herlz in the XIX century to create a country zionist country in Palestine, Hitler was not yet born.

http://zioncrimefactory.com/the-six-million-myth/

We have actually had the 'bull' of Holocaust denial done in the 'history and heritage' forum..... There are other Forums were your views will be most welcomed, ones that try to pass themselves off as 'History' forums but actually a cursory glance will soon let you know you have traveled to the 'twilight zone'....

I'm aware that there are war crimes happening as we speak, perhaps you could use your time and energy to focus on the 'facts' of these cases and not get involved with the 'they did was worse' argument.

And ye, I was in Oradour, and Auschwitz and I have searched through archives and other sources to find evidence of Allied war crimes, I have no ax to grind with one side against another, I call it as I see it, in the name of 'Factual Historical Research' you should try that, you may be shocked about what you find that goes against your current POV.