A new thread . . .

Dan, there is a decisive difference between the Holocaust and other Genocides. The actual Holocaust caused only some 6 million death of some 20 million genocide-victims of Nazi-Germany, but it stands out for it was the only time in history where a specific group was hunted for its very existance, and not because it was in the way in some kind. A deeper analysis of the reasons would certainly exceed the scope of this forum. This does of course not justify other genocides.


Jim,
I do not doubt that these hospital ships were sunk. But I do doubt your statement of "deliberate". My assumption would be that the order was to sink any vessels in a certain area, and so they did so without verification. I find it hard to believe that the crews knew that this was a hospital ship they were sinking before they did so. In the case of the Llandover the crew tried to kill all survivors because they wanted to cover up the sinking.
Question: Why should the crew of the sub try to cover their sinking by killing survivors when this sinking was backed up by official policy?
If you assume that sinking without verification is a crime, then the same would hold for bombing attacks upon areas with civilians in it.

Well, I am not here to argue that Germany had a "good" cause. Do you know of the incident when a German submarine crew was killed after their surrender? The already were on board of the british ship.

BTW: I am a bit puzzled by your tendency to excuse Allied war crimes with LATER crimes of Germany.

The atrocities in Belgium are not denied, but you tend to think that everything can be excused by them. In the autumn of 1914 some 5000 Belgians, mostly male civilians taken as hostages, were shot without any justified excuse by Germany, other than to suppress resistance by terror. Does this justify the killing of some 130000 German Russians by Russia in 1916, or the starvation blocade that killed more 500000 Germans? (civilians unfit for military service, mostly children and elderly -
and the effects were even worse in Austria and the Eastern territories).

The "moralic" propaganda of 1914, that made the Great War a crusade for humanity, failed to show up in the earlier crimes of this century. Some 23000 Boers died in Kitcheners concentration camps, women and children. The Germans killed some 160000 Hereros and Hottentots by expelling them into the desert - with some help of the British. The US killed some 250000 Phillipinos in the process of getting control of their new province.
I could add a couple of other incidents into this list.

"Morale", "Good", and "Wrong" was something that was always applied at need.

I do NOT state that Germany fought for the right cause. I just state the the US certainly fought for a wrong cause, too. The only nation that I do except from this is Belgium (even Greece, once pressed into the war by Allied pressure, continued for their own gain later).

The individual soldier fought for the "right" cause, but imho they were betrayed by their own polticians and (HQ)generals. When the killing stopped in March 1919 (when the blocade was partially lifted) the peace was made by these very politicians, and the results were well commented on by Foch: "That is not a peace but an armistice for 20 years".

You blame Germany for starting a second war. Then I assume that Foch must have erred, for he already predicted a new war in 1919 as result of the Versailles treaty, and as far as I know Germany was not allowed to have a hand in this treaty. In short: You simply cannot judge anything after 1919 without considering the effects of this treaty. If you do so, or if you justify the treaty by later events, your approach has nothing to do with history.

I think we can at least agree on a toast to all soldiers who served in good faith, and damnation to all who abused this. Regardless of their nation.

regards

Axel

Axel,
Dan is just upset because I busted his chops earlier on. But I agree, I toast all soldiers of both sides who fought HONORABLY! Those that engaged in atrocities deserved to be punished, no matter what side. However I am not excusing war crimes of the Allies, what I said was that they pale by comparison to the systematic extermination of races, and the organized atrocities committed by the Germans in WW1, and her ally Turkey.
VBR,
Jim

[Reinout]

Jim,

You probably don't like to hear it, but the ally of the USA and Great-Britain in WWII, the USSR, also has committed genocide/murder in large quantities. Before, during and after the war...

This genocide thing has been going on for as long as written history was there to record it - and even longer than that!

Kind regards,

Reinout

Well, you can act in good faith without being honorable. Those killing POWs with the traditional "too late chum" are imho not honorable, though they did what they thought was necessary.
I also would exlude bomber crews carpet bombing cities and submarines sinking passenger or red cross vessels from the honorable warfare, though I do assign them the good faith.

But that is nitpicking. If you commit a crime, like shooting civilians or killing POWs deliberately (not in a battle, but in camps), than I think the line has been crossed. (BTW: Did you know that the death rate of German POWs in western Allied camps was FAR higher then vice versa? And it was Germany who had to suffer the blocade.)
I do agree, however, that the common soldier of the western armies was probably less prone to commit criminal behaviour. But that might be lack of opportunity as much as better education, for in 1923 the French did machinegun striking workers in one occasion, without a war going on, and the behaviour of the British and US in the actions before the war does not instill much faith, too.

But all of this stuff is hard to define. I do agree that the Germany under Hitler set some new standards to atrocities, with some 20 million victims (jews, civilians, POWs and several other groups). I also stand by my conclusion that the German war crimes in Belgium were crimes, but not "unheard of atrocities that endager the western civilization" - they did not make the war right for the Allied side. The Versailles treaty was harsh, but the worst effect was imho its hypocrisis in moralic matters.

Actually I AM of the opinion that Foch erred. Without the economic crisis of 29 there would not have been a overthrow of the democratic powers in Germany, and thus no second world war (at least not one instigated by Germany). All sides were very war tired, even in Germany. But Versailles gave Hitler the successes he needed to stay in power long enough to establish the grip unto the population.

But all of this is not actually part of this forum :-(
But since I value your opinion and those of other forumites, I post it here anyway

mfg

Axel

Stalin has an estimated 40 million victims on his list, similar to Mao and ahead of Hitler.

The victims certainly do not care for the reasons, but all of these do have another quality than the 6 million victims of the Holocaust (just like the other 14 million victims of Hiter).

Until Germany attack upon Russia Stalin was viewed more as an ally of Germany than as a potential ally of Great Britain. German and Russian forces HAD already fought together against Poland, and French had already planned an air attack upon some Caucasian oilfields for July 1940.

Realpolitik dictated the alliance. Worse than the acceptance of Russia as an ally was the later behaviour, when survivors of the German allies were delivered towards Russia (not to be seen again).

regards

Axel

Reinout and Axel,
Fellows, I AM well aware of the murders committed by Stalin, and some of the other things that were done under Communist rule in China. As far as the other things about "too late chum" all I can say is that while they are wrong, they are understood more easily than systematic genocide. What happened in Belgium under the German invasion in 1914 was an atrocity. Any time you kill civilian non-combatants (priests, women, and children {boys 14 - 17 years of age}), that is an atrocity. There were no snipers or any such sort of resistance to the German invasion. That has been proven! The only resistance to the German invasion was by the Belgian Army (fully legal)! I DO NOT condone what Stalin, or Mao did, but if you will note, what they did was in their own country. During WW2 the German SS Einsatzgruppen made it a POLICY to exterminate Ukrainian Villages and raze them. That IS NOT going to engender any warm fuzzy feelings of goodwill towards the Germans by the Russians. Many documented cases of this occurred and they estimate 400 villages were razed. The DISTINCT difference between the killing of POW's (while wrong) and the Systematic Genocide practised by Germany is that (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE) the Genocide was SANCTIONED by the government. When that happens, then that tends to reflect on the country as a whole. Please don't try to shift the focus from Germany, to Russia or excuse it by saying "well Russia killed more". Also please show me documentation that Russia troops committed atrocities in the area of the Eastern Front during WW1.
The sinking of any hospital ship (they are well marked and CLEARLY unmistakable) is an atrocity and Germany DID DELIBERATELY sink these vessels under the unrestricted submarine warfare act.
VBR,
Jim

As the Americans crossed the Rhine and into German Territory they let it known to many of the small German Towns that if any resistance was met, all of the inhabitants of the town would be considered combatants. German citizens were told to hang a white sheet out of their windows or have their house blown up.

In some cases, the German Army would stand and fight and the civilians were killed right along with them in the ensuing artillery barrage. In other cases the German Army would evacuate the town as the Americans approached. If they were seen evacating, the town would be leveled. They should have surrendered.

If a German Civilian took a pot shot, then the Americans would pull back and call in artillery on the town. If the German Army had set up an ambush near the town, the Americans called in Artillery.

Typically as the German Army pulled back they would leave hunter-killer teams on the far side of the town to slow the advance of the enemy in order to cover their retreat. This was good enough to call in an artillery barrage on the town.

This was told to me by a German survivor. She was 13 or so at the time the Americans came to her town. The mayor of the town, met the Americans on the street and was promptly shot. He was suppose to remain inside.

Now there are numerous reasons to initiate such a strategy, the main one is to cut friendly losses.

I'm sure some will say "We never did this" but if you look at our history, we've done it for a long time. We did it in the Indian Wars and we did in Vietnam. I have no doubt that we did it WW2.

Perhaps, this isn't seen as an atrocity of war but it does fall under the category of "kill 'em all and let God sort out the bodies"

Tobias

[Reinout]

Tobias,

Your contributions to this thread have been most enlightened.

Jim,

You wrote:"Along with that, Germany made the mistake in two different wars of allying herself with countires who were also participating in mass genocide."

By which you say that you hold Germany accountable for the crimes committed by her allies. If you hold that against Germany, than fine. But if you use this in your judgment on country A, than in all fairness, it should recur in your judgment on countries B, C and so on. So in that respect, the Anglo-American alliance with Russia and China should also be looked at with the same criteria. Otherwise it's a double standard, applicable only where you want it to be applicable. So again, if you think we should hold it against Germany that she allied with countries that engaged in genocide, than you should also hold it against the British and Americans for allying with Russia.

As for Russian atrocities on the Eastern front... I can't believe you're even asking that. No less than your beloved Erich Hartmann suffered from 10 years of imprisonment - I've been told that their imprisonment was illegal (at least for such a long time). Furthermore, entire villages have been razed to the ground, with all the inhabitants murdered if they were still there. In fact, the Russian atrocities against German civilians were the reason for the Kriegsmarine's massive evacuation programme!

Remember what happened to Germans when the Russians secured Germany? THAT night? Don't say that there is no evidence, there have been a few documentaries on it. Not much fun to watch though.

And in your case it has always been that whenever a German atrocity is discussed, you call it a deliberate government-sanctioned act or offical policy, while Allied (war)crimes are always spurned in the heat of the action and never sanctioned by higher-ranking officers. Historical reality tells us that the side who gets to write history never commits atrocities - until years after! Don't be fooled into thinking that Monty, Bradley or Patton never issued orders to take no prisoners or to suppress civilian unrest with extreme measures. It happened, just that.

Kind regards,

Reinout

Reinout,
I asked for evidence of Russian atrocities on the Eastern Front IN WORLD WAR ONE! I won't deny that the Soviets comitted atrocities during WW2. I made the remark about being allied to two other countries that commited atrocities, to show that the acts of the other countries usually falls on the Allianc in the eyes of the world. America imprisoned most all of Japanese - American citizens in relocation camps during WW2, and there WERE certain cruelties committed, but these cruelties were not done with the express consent of the government. As far as Patton, and Bradley, and Monty giving orders to kill prisoners ... where is the documented proof? Are there written orders? If these acts were done due to some trickery during a surrender (which was known to happen) then let me ask you this Reinout, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Would you implicitly trust your enemy to be honorable and do the right thing? War is about killing, and if your enemy carries a gun, he's a combatant. But there is a DISTINCT difference between (clergy, civilians, elderly, women, kids) non-combattants and armed forces. What I feel is that Germany's Official policy of total war (sturm und drang) is wrong when it comes to the killing of non-combattants. But if it'll make you feel better, should I just say that these things never happened, or that it was OKAY? IMHO any nation that engages in a policy of conquest and allows, better yet promotes atrocities towards non-combattants is WRONG. I am not so naieve as to think that Americans, British, and French troops didn't commit some atrocities, for they surely did. But these were more on an isolated basis and not as much of a general rule as they seem to have been with the German troops. ESPECIALLY IN WW2. And you cannot hold America responsible for what Stalin did to his own country, after all it was Germany who financed the Bolshevik Revolution and allowed this type of government to gain power, no matter what her ultimate goal was. American influence in Russia during WW2 was practically non-existent and I would have to say that Russia pretty much ran her side of the war her own way. The same with the Turks and the Japs. So in that respect I don't hold Germany to blame for the atrocities the Turks committed nor the Japanese atrocities. But she sure didn't do much to stop them either when she was in the position to influence these things.
VBR,
Jim

Jim said:
The same with the Turks and the Japs. So in that respect I don't hold Germany to blame for the atrocities the Turks committed nor the Japanese atrocities. But she sure didn't do much to stop them either when she was in the position to influence these things.
--

When she was in a position to influence these things?

America was more in a position to stop atrocities in Vietnam, than Germany was to stop atrocities commited by Japan during WW2. We didn't. We were also in position to stop oppression and atrocities in the Shah's Iran, Marco's Philippines, and countless other thugs we courted with open wallets. We didn't.

I don't excuse Nazi Germany for its actions. But let's get real... There were plenty of units that ignored "shoot prisoner" orders. Hitler's "Commando" order was ignored by almost everyone on the Western Front (I know about Bullbasket) There were occasions where Wehrmacht officer where relieved of command or even shot for not following such directives.

This doesn't excuse the Holocaust. But at the same time I'm not willing to condemn the entire population of a country because of the actions of it's government. I'm more than willing to condemn it's government.

I'd hazard to guess that large sections of the Iraqi Army are disgusted by its government policy concerning the Kurds but fear manages to keep the soldiers in line.

Having never lived under a oppressive dictatorship, i have no idea how I would react to a government sanctioned holocaust. I fear, however, I would keep my mouth shut and try not to draw too much attention to myself for fear of what might happen to my family and friends.

And so do we pass the sins of the Nazis down to their children?

Tobias