American atrocities in Normandy

[dhermann1]

This should really come as no surprise. This just underscores, as if it were needed, the utter horror of war.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692037,00.html

 

[Tango Yankee]

Actually, I think that when you consider that it was "total war" and the conditions that it was fought in the fact that the atrocities committed by the Allies were relatively few in number is a testament to the discipline and morality of the troops.

Regards,
Tom

 

[dhermann1]

Also, I think there can be no doubt that committing atrocities was NOT part of a national policy, the way it was with both the major Axis powers. This just proves that people at war just go crazy from the terror and horror of it all.

 

[BellyTank]

They have McDonalds there now?


B
T

 

[Chas]

The phrase "people in glass houses..." immediately springs to mind.

I have a hard time wringing my hands over this. I could bring up the SS atrocities in Oradour-Sur-Glane and murdering 150 Canadian soldiers who were either surrendering or in the act of doing so. The Germans had a history of shooting prisoners that predated Barbarossa, so the "they were already brutalized by the time Normandy happened" excuse doesn't hold water. I've heard that tripe before.

When in combat, there are times when taking prisoners was not "on". Particularly if you're in the airborne, and you have no rear area to send them to. So you kill them. So what? All sorts of unpleasant things happen in combat. What are they looking for? An apology? Acknowledgement? Sympathy?

I have a news flash for German apologists: we were there to save civilization by killing as many Germans as we could. And that is exactly what we did.

I'm of the mind that we didn't kill enough of the bast*rds. They were criminals in uniform, not soldiers. I'm surprised that they still have the gall to bring this sort of thing up.

 

[Spitfire]

I think we could all do without the two last statements, Chas.
And who are "they" actually?
As I read it, it's from a book written by the british historian Beevor.

 

[Edward]

History is, as ever, written by the victor. That's why the Blitz on London made Goering a war criminal, while Arthur Harris - who, let us not forget, deliberately and calculatedly targetted civilians in Dresden, a city with no military targets and no other possible strategic gain - has a statue to him in central London. Different times, maybe... but not so different that they didn't demonise Goering for doing exactly the same thing as they thought wholly acceptable themselves.

I think the sad thing is too that so many people on the "winning" side still seem not to have learned anything fom the experience, or to believe that something so very grey can be reduced to the level of 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

 

[Chas]

The statements are directed at German apologists, whatever country they're from. There are plenty of Naziphiles and said apologists all over the place- even in Russia, of all places. I just happen to loathe Nazis and the people who love them. There are many admirers in the US and the UK of the SS and the like, for example. Some are reenactors, others are historians and yet others are holocaust deniers. Many of them like to take the angle that "hey, the Allies were just as bad..." Which is a load of B.S.

There are lots of people who think that the SS, the Wehrmacht and the NAZIs were "just defending their country". I don't feel obligated to put up with that sort of nonsense.

As to the targeting of civilians- the civilian is the "backer" of an armed forces in the field. The civilian harvests the crops that feed the army in the field, runs the railways that takes it to battle and pays the taxes that pays for it all. The civilian has always been a legitimate target in total war, a concept that the Germans subscribed to. Dresden? How about Warsaw, Guernica, Liverpool, Leningrad, Coventry, Manchester, Rotterdam? The Luftwaffe also deliberately targeted refugees during the invasion of the low countries and France to spread panic and to jam up the roads that Allied reinforcements had to use. To suggest that it "isn't cricket" to target civilians is naive at the very least.

Here's a thought: "maybe they shouldn't have started that war in the first place..."

 

[Chas]

@Edward: Actually, no. (re: Goering). He was tried at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity. He was also one of the originators of the concentration camps and he issued direct orders to Heydrich to organize the details of the "final solution".

 

[The Lonely Navigator]

Yes I agree with Spitfire on this. War is ugly in and of itself (good bad - right wrong aside) and statements like that certainly don't help...and shows that the 'ugly side' of the psyche can crop up on the side of the allies. (Don't mean to get all esoteric, but Dr. Gustav Jung said it himself.)

I'm finding many of the books that I read on the U-Boats written by Canadians or British authors and they are very very objective on the issue. This is a nice refreshing thing to have, after so many years of not looking at things objectively.

While I don't condone state sanctioned wholesale industrial murder, I also don't approve of calling all Germans 'Nazis' and branding them all as criminals - and 'b@stards' either.

 

[Chas]

@Prien - well you obviously condone something if you chose one of the most NAZI-fied U-Boat commanders as your FL Identity. Prien was an enthusiastic NAZI. So you were (a) apparently unaware of that fact or (b) admire him.

Neither is particularly admirable, so I really don't care whether you were offended or not. I stand by my statement. The Germans who invaded other people's countries, enslaved, tortured, starved, executed, deported for slave labour and sent to concentration camps were criminals. Likely all who supported them either directly or indirectly in Germany and collaborated with them in any other country is likewise a criminal.

They did it at the behest of a man who made no secret of his intentions, and who based his intentions on the basest lies.

They were criminals before the war (by international law) and they were after.

 

[dhermann1]

You can't say that Chas minces his words!
Regarding the area bombing of Germany, I've always found this an interesting issue. Bomber Harris' idea that he could bomb the civilian population into capitulation was as monstrous as it was fallacious. And my man Winston supported it, even against his own naturally humane sentiments. There is a well known incident of Churchill being moved to tears by the image of destruction raining down on Germany as filmed from the bombers. But he didn't stop it.
The bottom line is that war drags everyone involved down to its own lowest common demoninator.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"War isn't about dying for your country. It's about making sure the other SOB dies for *his* country." -- Geo. S. Patton

 

[Chas]

"War isn't about dying for your country. It's about making sure the other SOB dies for *his* country." -- Geo. S. Patton

Thanks, Liz. That's pretty much sums it up. Sometimes I get the impression that quite a few people miss the point that that is exactly why the US and Canadian troops crossed the Atlantic for the second time in less than half a century.

What do they (the uninformed) think that our fathers and grandfathers were there to do? Give the English girls dancing lessons?

The "Greatest Generation" are named so, in my opinion, because they did what they did without a sense of entitlement and have always seemed to me to carry themselves with humility and quiet dignity. Probably because they know what they did and because of what they were witnesses to.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Key operative term: WAR! (...as in "War Is Hell!) No further explanation needed!

-dixon cannon

 

[The Lonely Navigator]

@Prien - well you obviously condone something if you chose one of the most NAZI-fied U-Boat commanders as your FL Identity. Prien was an enthusiastic NAZI. So you were (a) apparently unaware of that fact or (b) admire him.

I thought we had settled that before but to refresh your memory:

Excerpts from "Wolfpack: The Story of the U-Boat"

"At least one of the most highly respected and chivalrous U-Boat aces was an early party member and even held rank in the SS but was obliged to give up his membership of both organisations when joining the navy in 1934."

"Interestingly, though himself and admirer of Hitler, Donitz ensured that so-called 'National Leadership Officers' (similar to Soviet 'political commissars') were never allowed to serve on U-Boats, despite assertions to the contrary by some writers."

On Werner Henke, commander of U 124:

"He stormed into the headquarters of the local Gauleiter, and then the Gestapo headquarters itself, branding them as thugs and gangsters. Despite an earlier incident when he struck an SS officer, Henke received no more than a stern rebuke from Donitz. It is hard to imagine any ordinary German citizen being quite so fortunate."

"U-Boat commanders, though proud and patriotic Germans, were quite notorious in their disrespect for the Nazi regime. On one famous occasion, U-Boat ace Teddy Suhren of U 564 was approaching port to tie up alongside after a long war cruise when he leaned over the edge of the conning tower and yelled 'Are the Nazis still in charge?' When the reply 'Yes' came back, Suhren immediately put his engines into reverse and backed away from the quayside, much to the amusement of those watching."

"Typically, U-Boat men loved jazz (which was much frowned upon in the Third Reich), French women, and thoroughly good beer - in quantity. They hated the military police, ignored political issues and generally treated the enemy, whom Nazi propaganda sought to have them hate, with respect and chivalry. Like most elites, they worked very hard, and many of them liked to play hard, too."

From: "U-Boat Commanders - Nazi's or Not" - uboat.net

"...even defining what it meant to be a “Nazi” is a slippery slope. Party membership isn’t definitive as many joined just to keep their jobs or because they believed in a strong government etc. and didn’t realize that the despicable aspects of the party would actually be carried out. The crimes of the “Nazis” escalated over time and the worst crimes were kept secret from most Germans. Indeed general knowledge the worst crimes didn’t occur until after the war. Others embraced even the worst aspects of the party but never joined the party."

"Note that being member or the NSDAP doesn't mean automatically that one is a devoted nazi, Prien was member before 1933, but mostly because of the economical circumstances of the time and not due to racial or political beliefs."

Also this hardly seems to be the type of statement made by some hard-core Nazi:

"I recall one statement he [Prien] made to me in confidence: 'When I saw the first burning tanker in front of me and thought of the wretched hundreds of men perishing in this dome of flames, I felt like a murderer before scene of a crime'." - Nightmare at Scapa Flow

Neither is particularly admirable, so I really don't care whether you were offended or not. I stand by my statement. The Germans who invaded other people's countries, enslaved, tortured, starved, executed, deported for slave labour and sent to concentration camps were criminals. Likely all who supported them either directly or indirectly in Germany and collaborated with them in any other country is likewise a criminal.

They did it at the behest of a man who made no secret of his intentions, and who based his intentions on the basest lies.

Now the second part of what you said interests me because I had recently read in The Great Naval Game about the public and supporting things that the gov't did. I will post it here for reference - things aren't always what they seem on the outside:

The Great Naval Game

This is a really good book that picks up where The Grand Scuttle left off as far as the naval support by the public in both Germany and Britain is concerned. It is quite in depth about naval celebrations with the public (naval 'reviews', ship launchings, etc.) and how everything became more intertwined: cinema/film, publications, and other forms of 'mass media'. Much of what is stated in this book is still quite applicable today.

It sheds much light on 'the masses' and how during the Wilhelmine era - the undercover police followed workers into the ship yards to find out those who might be a possible nuisance or not follow imperial protocol and social customs (for example - showing respect to the Kaiser, etc.) It was amazing to read just how bad it was, and sounds very much like the GESTAPO of the 1930s - 40s. From all I've read, there doesn't seem to be too much of a difference - the only thing missing is the concentration/death camps.

It explains in one of the chapters about how many of them would cheer, but it was done out of fear of the police - not because they were celebrating the launching of a new ship - but strictly out of fear of being arrested.

"Officer Graumann reported a pub conversation on 29 May 1895 in which on worker had said:

'One has to take into account that not only the patriotic public will take part in the celebration, but also the Social Democrats, who normally despise such festivities; they will be there in large numbers, mostly out of curiosity, and they will shout Hooray and Hey just like the best patriot, if only out of fear that they could otherwise be arrested by the Criminalpolizei for lese-majeste.'

"To describe the naval theatre as apolitical or as characterized by consensus neglects this strong element of orchestration and intervention: conflict was hidden, consensus staged."

"Moreover, to see this public theatre a genuine expression of popular sentiment underestimates the complex and contradictory ways in which people participated. Audiences went to see the naval theatre for a range of reasons. There is little doubt that many of them were fascinated by the technological and visual spectacle it offered. Yet they did not have to buy into the display of hierarchy and power; nor did they have to refrain from interpreting aspects of the spectical politically and critically."

The book also has a part where it mentions a British stoker and his dissatisfaction and antipathy towards the Elite and officer class, but also still having a sense of pride and honor.

"This is a striking example of the way in which public appearances and private views could coexist. Clearly, participants from a range of backgrounds found it possible to be part of the naval theatre without accepting or internalizing the social and political hierarchy that it embodied."

"To attend public rituals did not necessarily mean agreement with those staging them or acquiescence in their policies."

This made me think of all those cheering photos during the 1930s - 40s of the masses regarding Hitler's speeches - just how many of them were 'genuinely' cheering? How many were merely putting on a 'show' of cheering due to fear? Also - the same with the other parts - how many were simply interested (and amazed) at the spectacular rallies that were put on by Hitler and the NSDAP...but not really caring about the politics, etc.?

This book is very helpful in understanding the mass rallies during the III Reich - even though it is about the naval celebrations (much of the same things apply): "It was the Edwardian and Wilhelmine naval theatre that pioneered the decidedly modern genre of displaying power and technology through artifical light, a genre that was to become a standard feature of public rituals in the 1930s."

And I am a reenactor/living historian - and that is my identity.

Nor do I make any apologies.

 

[ukali1066]

Atrocities were committed by all sides...you also never hear about the huge amount of rape that was inflicted on the Conquered German female populace by allied soldiers...

We need to accept that war brings out the worst side of the human being whatever country/flag/doctrine he is fighting for...

It also brings out extreme courage, humanity and brotherhood

 

[Chas]

War is an atrocity. It's also sometimes necessary.

@Prien- that was the biggest crock of poo I have read in a long time.

THIS is what he fought for.

The U-Boat peeps can bray on and on about how honorable they were until doomsday. It does not change the fact that they signed on to fight for a man who's stated intent from the very beginning was to rid the world of "the evils of Jewish Freemasonry and Bolshevism". That, and to make the German nation dominant in Europe. WW2 in Europe was essentially a race war.

They fought and died for the most excrable cause that men have ever fought for. As a reward, their country was divided for 45 years, and the world was engaged in a Cold War that lasted as long. Nothing to be proud of.

 

[bbc1969]

Atrocities were committed by all sides...you also never hear about the huge amount of rape that was inflicted on the Conquered German female populace by allied soldiers...

I get your point. However, I have read many accounts of Soviet forces and their treatment of prisoners, citizens, and specifically widespread rape. I have never seen documentation or read of any instances of a "Huge" amount of rape being perpetrated by the vast majority of allied nations. Please direct me in the right direction if there is indeed documentation of say the U.S., UK, French, Canadian, Australian, committing such "Huge" amounts of rape and pillage on the populace. Of course incidents did take place, committed by servicemen of these nations, but nothing systemic and basically "institutionalized" like what took place at the hands of Soviet troops.

 

[Viola]

"...even defining what it meant to be a “Nazi” is a slippery slope. Party membership isn’t definitive as many joined just to keep their jobs or because they believed in a strong government etc. and didn’t realize that the despicable aspects of the party would actually be carried out. The crimes of the “Nazis” escalated over time and the worst crimes were kept secret from most Germans. Indeed general knowledge the worst crimes didn’t occur until after the war. Others embraced even the worst aspects of the party but never joined the party."

That's not slippery. At all. If you joined the party for convenience and your job, you were a Nazi. If you didn't join but you supported the "worst aspects" you are equivalent in every meaningful way and you were a Nazi.

I fail to see how that first group has any "not a real Nazi" defense except in their own minds. If I joined the Crips because it was the best way forward for money - but I'm not really a 'banger and down - I'm still a Crip and a spineless wh*re as well.