88 year old Nazi soldier charged over 1944 massacre.

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.

Das Reich

boomchicawawa wrote: »

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.

I am very old to get schocked with something. I perfectly know the war crimes from the axis.

boomchicawawa

Das Reich wrote: »

I am very old to get schocked with something. I perfectly know the war crimes from the axis.

Then, with all due respect, shame on you for appearing to justify their crimes.

periodictable

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.

Really? What do you know about it? Who started the war? Who decided certain races were "sub-human"? I have memories of my father and his brothers recalling how a small boys they sheltered under the stairs in their homes with their mother, singing nursery rhymes as the Luftwaffe relentlessly rained bombs down on their city, night after night.
This was the third occasion that the Germans instigated a major conflict. Channel 4 last night carried a documentary on Polish squadron 303, which was made up of Polish airmen who had escaped the Nazi invasion. Apart from their skill as fighter pilots, what marked these men out was their determination to kill Germans pilots, based on their experience of the horror and annihilation the German war machine wrought on their country.
As you sow so shall you reap. It's a shame that Truman didn't have the A-bomb ready to use on Germany.

Das Reich

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Then, with all due respect, shame on you for appearing to justify their crimes.

Seems my english is not too good or you have optical problem and didn't read properly what I wrote. I said that if things really happened on the way you said, I would like to see all those criminals paying for what they did. But at the same time, it is hard to believe in post-war propaganda where all the lights were only on one side. Tell me any american that paid for his war crimes. Many germans innocent were killed or sent to forced labour, an exemple is the 10 germans that were tortured to says that they were the responsables for the massacre of katyn. After the fall of Soviet Union all the truth about this episode were discovered. However the lives of the ones executed for crimes done by anothers will never be back. The same I can say to you, shame on you for be Irish (catholic I guess) and defend anglo-americans.

periodictable

Das Reich wrote: »

I am from South America and I don't understand how Irish people talk about Germany and their "crimes" on WWII.

I wonder what generation S. American you are. Are you of German extraction? Did your family flee post WW2?

Das Reich

periodictable wrote: »

Really? What do you know about it? Who started the war? Who decided certain races were "sub-human"? I have memories of my father and his brothers recalling how a small boys they sheltered under the stairs in their homes with their mother, singing nursery rhymes as the Luftwaffe relentlessly rained bombs down on their city, night after night.
This was the third occasion that the Germans instigated a major conflict. Channel 4 last night carried a documentary on Polish squadron 303, which was made up of Polish airmen who had escaped the Nazi invasion. Apart from their skill as fighter pilots, what marked these men out was their determination to kill Germans pilots, based on their experience of the horror and annihilation the German war machine wrought on their country.
As you sow so shall you reap. It's a shame that Truman didn't have the A-bomb ready to use on Germany.

1 - War was already started in 1919 with the humilliant Treaty of Versailles. It turned on Worl War on the 3 of September when England and France declared war against Germany.

2 - I guess you talk about the Jews tha thinks they are the choosen people from god and all the rest is sub-humans. They still doing eugenics in Israel where black ethiopians are forced to esterilization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZFTvvFpKUQ

3 - Luftwaffe bombed London after the RAF was already bombing Berlin and Italian cities in North Italy (Turin and Genua). Wilhelmhaven was the first city bombed on WWII already on 4 September of 1939.

4- England was always a genocidal empire, the first ones to build concentration camps in South Africa during the boer wars. They used the polish during WWII and after it they gave Poland to Soviet Union.

boomchicawawa

Das Reich wrote: »

Seems my english is not too good or you have optical problem and didn't read properly what I wrote. I said that if things really happened on the way you said, I would like to see all those criminals paying for what they did. But at the same time, it is hard to believe in post-war propaganda where all the lights were only on one side. Tell me any american that paid for his war crimes. Many germans innocent were killed or sent to forced labour, an exemple is the 10 germans that were tortured to says that they were the responsables for the massacre of katyn. After the fall of Soviet Union all the truth about this episode were discovered. However the lives of the ones executed for crimes done by anothers will never be back. The same I can say to you, shame on you for be Irish (catholic I guess) and defend anglo-americans.

Not sure how you can guess what my religion is, or why it would matter what it is. As an Irish person who grew up with the 'Troubles' on the TV day after day, with the news of endless, senseless killing by all sides. Both sides claiming the higher moral ground, both sides retaliating against perceived injustice, you get fed up with it and you stand back and try to make sense of it.

What I have come to believe is that no murder or crime is justified by any side... I think you need to re-read my posts, I have already said that I take no sides, I do not 'support' anyone. And I have already posted that I know that few if any from the Allied side stood trial for war crimes, but I have seen evidence whereby Germans who were found guilty and sentenced to death for war crimes, had their sentences commuted because some Allied commanders thought that putting them on trial for 'heat of war' crimes was unjust.

Das Reich

periodictable wrote: »

I wonder what generation S. American you are. Are you of German extraction? Did your family flee post WW2?

Don't think I need answer this, but some of my family arrived in Brazil from Lebanon on the 1910's as they were arab christians fleeing from the Ottoman Empire. Others came a little before in 1890's from Europe. So I am semite and not full white (just in case somebody call me a nazi, skinhead, white supremacist, anti-semite and any of those words).

beauf

Das Reich wrote: »

I am from South America and I don't understand how Irish people talk about Germany.... and Irish people still defend England and USA....

You'd need to be living on mars not to understand that.

Snickers Man

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

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.

Suggest you read Max Hasting's Bomber Command a bit more closely then. His opinions, presented a little more temperately, hardly coincide with yours.

And if you say "the only way we can hit back is to bomb civilians indiscriminately" then you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you want to wag your finger at the likes of Al Q'aida or the Red Brigades or anybody for that matter.