88 year old Nazi soldier charged over 1944 massacre.

paul71

I remember reading a book about 2nd SS Das Reich and its advance to Normandy after D-Day. The march to Normady from Southern France took 2 weeks longer then it should have taken due to resistance efforts to delay them. It was during this period massacre at Oradour took place, the really appalling memory I have is that the grenadier regiment which played the active role were a recent conscript draft of not Germans, but 17 and 18 year old Alsatians.

I will try find the book tomorrow.

Found it

Das Reich: The March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Through France, June 1944
by Max Hastings

Snickers Man

paul71 wrote: »

the really appalling memory I have is that the grenadier regiment which played the active role were a recent conscript draft of not Germans, but 17 and 18 year old Alsatians.

I remember coming across that fact as well. That many of the participants in the massacre were men who were born Frenchmen but, by virtue of the fact that Alsace and Lorraine (Elsass and Loringen) were reincorporated back into the Reich following France's surrender they had become redefined as Germans.

(EDIT: in fact I probably read it here on Wikipedia)

There's a lot of grey, as well as black and white, in the history of WWII.

paul71

Snickers Man wrote: »

There's a lot of grey, as well as black and white, in the history of WWII.

You are so right

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/BordeauxTrial.html

"The survivors of the massacre in Oradour-sur-Glane were demanding justice, but the problem was how to prosecute the Alsatian perpetrators who were exempt under the French law passed on 28 August 1944. This dilemma was finally resolved on 15 September 1948 by new legislation which was aimed specifically at the Alsatians who were involved in the killing of the villagers, some of whom were Alsatian refugees. In fact, some of the perpetrators were from Shiltigheim, a suburb of Strasbourg, the same town from which the refugees had fled."

Just found this, Alsatian refugees hiding in Oradour murdered by Alsatians conscripted into the SS from the same Alsatian town.

boomchicawawa

Your facts are correct and I think when it was found that it wasn't a clear cut case of Germans V French, it took the wind out of the prosecution. Many of the young men fighting for the WSS in the latter years of the war would have been reluctant conscripts. The WSS's numbers had been decimated on the Eastern Front and they were not as choosy as to the calibre of their recruits by 1944 as they had been at the start of the war. Many of the divisions were exclusively filled with foreign recruits, some joined willingly, others because pressure was put on them or that their families in the occupied territories might benefit in some way.

But they were all under German military codes and undoubtedly it was German military policy to tackle 'partisan' attacks with an iron fist response. There still is a debate as to whether Oradour was targeted in error as the orderers were supposedly for another village of a same name.

riffmongous

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Your facts are correct and I think when it was found that it wasn't a clear cut case of Germans V French, it took the wind out of the prosecution. Many of the young men fighting for the WSS in the latter years of the war would have been reluctant conscripts. The WSS's numbers had been decimated on the Eastern Front and they were not as choosy as to the calibre of their recruits by 1944 as they had been at the start of the war. Many of the divisions were exclusively filled with foreign recruits, some joined willingly, others because pressure was put on them or that their families in the occupied territories might benefit in some way.

But they were all under German military codes and undoubtedly it was German military policy to tackle 'partisan' attacks with an iron fist response. There still is a debate as to whether Oradour was targeted in error as the orderers were supposedly for another village of a same name.

Indeed look at the regular controversies that spring up in the Baltic over the commemoration of the Latvian and Estonian Waffen SS units, conscripts, collaborators, freedom fighters..

Red Nissan

paul71 wrote: »

You are so right

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/BordeauxTrial.html

.

If I've read this correctly all outstanding persons have been given amnesty already.

paul71

Red Nissan wrote: »

If I've read this correctly all outstanding persons have been given amnesty already.

Not quite, amnesty was given to Alsatian perpetrators of Oradour murders from prosecution in France after 1953. But the current prosecution is taking place in Germany not France and since the identity of the soldier as not been made public we cant know if he is Alsation or German.

fergus1001

It's bleedin disgraceful Joe

Red Nissan

fergus1001 wrote: »

It's bleedin disgraceful Joe

Unfortunately yes, it is. Thanks for the serous contributors and I will enjoy reading you again, but for this thread, yes, Joe, and they probably don't even pay the TV license either.

knucklehead6

There's a book I read recently, called The Wrong Stuff by an American B-17 copilot/pilot named Trumann Smith. One of the most striking things about the book is that he keeps on reiterating that even though they were perceived as being the 'good guys' that they were 'worse' than the 'bad guys' as for the allies to win they had to prove that they would kill more, destroy more and take more than the axis forces would. I'll get the section from the book where he first starts mentioning this tonight when I get home.

And I know that using the good/bad guy analogy is childish but from recollection they are the terms that Smith used in his book

beauf

Did he mean in the context of area bombing, or simply being a soldier/combatant in war.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

Did he mean in the context of area bombing, or simply being a soldier/combatant in war.

Both. Basically he was saying that no matter how vicious the Axis forces were that the Allies had to be worse to win the war.

beauf

I think you'd have to define worse. Was it worse that the allies fought and won vs the germans being left in place.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

I think you'd have to define worse. Was it worse that the allies fought and won vs the germans being left in place.

No, it's pretty straight forward (to me anyway).

The Germans started the war, and engaged in some pretty horrific acts, such as the concentration camps, the massacre at Oradour, the brutality and savagery of the eastern front.

For the Allies to win they had to be more savage, more brutal and engage in more horrific acts, to beat them.

beauf

I don't really follow what you think were more horrific acts in totality committed by the allies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

I don't really follow what you think were more horrific acts in totality committed by the allies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

What?? Colour me confused. I don't get what you are trying to say.

beauf

That makes two of us.

I personally don't think the Allies were as bad as the axis forces. Even considering the eastern front.

But if you are a pacifist, you're not going to agree with any kind of armed conflict.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

That makes two of us.

I personally don't think the Allies were as bad as the axis forces. Even considering the eastern front.

But if you are a pacifist, you're not going to agree with any kind of armed conflict.

Ok, if you are in a fight with a vicious person, who will bite, and gouge and stamp and kick and use anything at their disposal to win, then if you want to win you have to be MORE vicious, MORE bitey, MORE stopmy and MORE willing to use anything at your disposal to win (as demonstrated by the [legitimate IMO] destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Does that make it clearer?

Jawgap

knucklehead6 wrote: »

There's a book I read recently, called The Wrong Stuff by an American B-17 copilot/pilot named Trumann Smith. One of the most striking things about the book is that he keeps on reiterating that even though they were perceived as being the 'good guys' that they were 'worse' than the 'bad guys' as for the allies to win they had to prove that they would kill more, destroy more and take more than the axis forces would. I'll get the section from the book where he first starts mentioning this tonight when I get home.

And I know that using the good/bad guy analogy is childish but from recollection they are the terms that Smith used in his book

Was at thing recently were the impact of the Allies unconditional surrender was discussed - basically this had a widespread and profound impact on the way the war was prosecuted and the way the 'endgame' was resolved.

In essence, the Germans (and Japanese) practically to a person had to believe they were beaten and absolutely defeated - one way to do that was to bomb and bomb relentlessly to demonstrate that the regimes were spent and they could not protect the people.

Unfortunately there was no way to know how much was too much. With hindsight it's fairly easy to identify excess, but at the time, facing what they (the Allies) were facing I don't believe that what was done was excessive.

No doubt Hitler (and the senior OKW commanders) as a student of Clausewitz understood the 'unsparing bloodshed' required to obtain superiority .

beauf

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Ok, if you are in a fight with a vicious person, who will bite, and gouge and stamp and kick and use anything at their disposal to win, then if you want to win you have to be MORE vicious, MORE bitey, MORE stopmy and MORE willing to use anything at your disposal to win (as demonstrated by the [legitimate IMO] destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Does that make it clearer?

If the vicious person was a mugger and caught you on your own. Then sure.

But I think there's a bit of unnecessary hand wringing in that book you are talking about.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

If the vicious person was a mugger and caught you on your own. Then sure.

But I think there's a bit of unnecessary hand wringing in that book you are talking about.

have you read the book? or are you judging it on my recollection of a brief passage??

Sounds to me like you are jumping to conclusions. And incorrect ones at that.

beauf

I'm taking your comment at face value.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

...he keeps on reiterating that even though they were perceived as being the 'good guys' that they were 'worse' than the 'bad guys' as for the allies to win they had to prove that they would kill more, destroy more and take more than the axis forces would....

Of course maybe I'm not on the same wavelength.

Looks a good book, kinda thing I like, so ordered it. Cheers.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

I'm taking your comment at face value.



Of course maybe I'm not on the same wavelength.

Looks a good book, kinda thing I like, so ordered it. Cheers.

I had a look on Amazon and you can do the whole 'look inside' thing. The passage i was talking is on page 11

beauf

Ummm I still think hes taking a very narrow view.

Reekwind

knucklehead6 wrote: »

There's a book I read recently, called The Wrong Stuff by an American B-17 copilot/pilot named Trumann Smith. One of the most striking things about the book is that he keeps on reiterating that even though they were perceived as being the 'good guys' that they were 'worse' than the 'bad guys' as for the allies to win they had to prove that they would kill more, destroy more and take more than the axis forces would. I'll get the section from the book where he first starts mentioning this tonight when I get home

I don't buy that logic. In the first place, war was never some great counting game or race to the bottom in which the side that devastated the other the most won. By any objective measure, the side that "killed more, destroyed more and took more" was the Axis. For all the list of Allied war crimes, it pales in comparison to the horrifically large number of civilians killed by German and Japanese soldiers

You could argue that in places the Allies matched German viciousness but surely not exceed it. For example, very few places in Germany suffered to the same extent as the occupied Soviet territories or the various Jewish ghettos.

Jawgap wrote:

Was at thing recently were the impact of the Allies unconditional surrender was discussed - basically this had a widespread and profound impact on the way the war was prosecuted and the way the 'endgame' was resolved.

In essence, the Germans (and Japanese) practically to a person had to believe they were beaten and absolutely defeated - one way to do that was to bomb and bomb relentlessly to demonstrate that the regimes were spent and they could not protect the people.

Unconditional surrender was unquestionably important in the diplomatic 'endgame' but it can be overstated. There were real cultural and institutional constraints on the Japanese desire to surrender (they were negotiating right until the Soviets declared war) there and the atomic bombs remain intensely controversial.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the Nazis had always operated under the belief that this was a war to the death. Particularly so following the invasion of the USSR: an adventure portrayed as a crusade for the salvation of civilisation. Everyone knew that there was no backing down from that cast of the die, particularly not after half of Russia was set aflame. Hitler might have imposed a punitive peace on the Soviets but would never have expected or accepted a negotiated Nazi defeat.

Or, as Stalin pithily put it long before Casablanca: "The German invaders want a war of extermination against the peoples of the USSR. Well, if the Germans want a war of extermination then they will get it!"

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

......
Unconditional surrender was unquestionably important in the diplomatic 'endgame' but it can be overstated. There were real cultural and institutional constraints on the Japanese desire to surrender (they were negotiating right until the Soviets declared war) there and the atomic bombs remain intensely controversial.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the Nazis had always operated under the belief that this was a war to the death. Particularly so following the invasion of the USSR: an adventure portrayed as a crusade for the salvation of civilisation. Everyone knew that there was no backing down from that cast of the die, particularly not after half of Russia was set aflame. Hitler might have imposed a punitive peace on the Soviets but would never have expected or accepted a negotiated Nazi defeat.

Or, as Stalin pithily put it long before Casablanca: "The German invaders want a war of extermination against the peoples of the USSR. Well, if the Germans want a war of extermination then they will get it!"

that's all true, but the Axis was more than just the Germans and Japanese - the policy of unconditional surrender had significant implications in the Med and in respect of Italy's surrender and also, to a lesser extent, with the surrender of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

Manic Moran

fergus1001 wrote: »

It's bleedin disgraceful Joe

[Mod]Non-constructive post. Warning[/Mod]

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

that's all true, but the Axis was more than just the Germans and Japanese - the policy of unconditional surrender had significant implications in the Med and in respect of Italy's surrender and also, to a lesser extent, with the surrender of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

Completely fair point. I would note though that of the four other Axis nations mentioned, two quickly found their way into the Allied camp and the other two were only prevented from doing do by German arms. Which would suggest that, on the ground at least, the formal agreement at Casablanca was fairly moot

beauf

Another point is late in the war, its arguable that the bombing campaigns especially the Nuclear bombs served more than one purpose.

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

Completely fair point. I would note though that of the four other Axis nations mentioned, two quickly found their way into the Allied camp and the other two were only prevented from doing do by German arms. Which would suggest that, on the ground at least, the formal agreement at Casablanca was fairly moot

Certainly in the case of Italy it was a hugely complicating factor and both Eisenhower and McMillan acknowledged as much. All the faffing about almost led to the 82nd Airborne dropping near Rome without any Italian support. Their drop was only called off after some of the planes were in the air.

The mis-timed surrender broadcast by Eisenhower (because he was misinformed about Italian intentions) gave the Germans ample warning - allowing them to disarm the Italians, and arguably prevented that campaign being brought to a relatively swift conclusion. All of which started when the initial peace feelers put out by the Italians ran into the Allied policy of unconditional surrender, no exceptions.