Hi Haen,
So, the Nuremberg trials were a farce? And which particular "innocents" were sentenced to death at them?
Which particular Soviet warcrimes were the Waffen-SS blamed for?
How do alleged Western war crimes, true or false, in any way impinge on the justification for pursuing Waffen-SS war crimes?
There were many failings in the Nuremberg trials, but the conviction of innocents was not one of them. The key failing in the Nuremberg trials was that only a small proportion of the culprits were ever put before them.
Cheers,
Sid.
Waffen SS criminal organizations?
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi fKnorr,
Nope. Judges should be independent. As I wrote, there are many failings in the Nuremberg trials, but, for all that, the sentencing to death of innocents doesn't appear to be one of them.
If you want to include in your posts things I have posted, please be more specific and include a specific reference. Where have I ever "mentioned (or elluded to).... that it was some sort of Nazi conspiracy to commit these acts". And what are "these acts"?
Please read carefully what I have written. I specifically wrote "Nazi German" repeatedly. If I had wanted to accuse Germans as a whole I would simply have written "German". I think you are probably doing this in innocence, but it is an old trick to try to deflect attacks on Nazi Germany onto the German people as a whole in order to make unjustified accusations of "race guilt". Please don't do it. It isn't intellectually honest.
Thank you for reinforcing my point about the limitations of the post-war trials. If only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of several hundred thousand human beings at Bergen Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
So, the Allies had many reasons to shift the blame? If so, please list which were the Allied war crmes for which blame was shifted to the Waffen-SS?
Yup. I am all in favour of looking at the history and not the "BS". When my questions to you and Haen are answered we might see where the actual "BS" lies.
Cheers,
Sid.
Nope. Judges should be independent. As I wrote, there are many failings in the Nuremberg trials, but, for all that, the sentencing to death of innocents doesn't appear to be one of them.
If you want to include in your posts things I have posted, please be more specific and include a specific reference. Where have I ever "mentioned (or elluded to).... that it was some sort of Nazi conspiracy to commit these acts". And what are "these acts"?
Please read carefully what I have written. I specifically wrote "Nazi German" repeatedly. If I had wanted to accuse Germans as a whole I would simply have written "German". I think you are probably doing this in innocence, but it is an old trick to try to deflect attacks on Nazi Germany onto the German people as a whole in order to make unjustified accusations of "race guilt". Please don't do it. It isn't intellectually honest.
Thank you for reinforcing my point about the limitations of the post-war trials. If only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of several hundred thousand human beings at Bergen Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
So, the Allies had many reasons to shift the blame? If so, please list which were the Allied war crmes for which blame was shifted to the Waffen-SS?
Yup. I am all in favour of looking at the history and not the "BS". When my questions to you and Haen are answered we might see where the actual "BS" lies.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
fknorr
sid guttridge wrote:There were many failings in the Nuremberg trials, but the conviction of innocents was not one of them. The key failing in the Nuremberg trials was that only a small proportion of the culprits were ever put before them.Cheers,
Sid.
Who did the allies leave out?
You seem to forget that Nuremburg was not the only trial there, then.
-
fknorr
As stated above who did they miss?sid guttridge wrote:Hi fKnorr,
Nope. Judges should be independent. As I wrote, there are many failings in the Nuremberg trials, but, for all that, the sentencing to death of innocents doesn't appear to be one of them.
.
And, I am not buying the impartiallity of the allies, sorry.
You seem to be putting words/deeds in my mouth that are not there. Your implications of wide spread German participation is EXACTLY in your repeated use of "Nazi Germany". This implies that everyone was either (a) a party member or (b) somehow involved in heinous acts (or both) when in fact the reality of Germans and Germany as a whole is further from the truth than as been fed to us all these years. Everyone was not a party member (even those mean ol' SS guys) were not (to a man) members of the party.sid guttridge wrote: If you want to include in your posts things I have posted, please be more specific and include a specific reference. Where have I ever "mentioned (or elluded to).... that it was some sort of Nazi conspiracy to commit these acts". And what are "these acts"?
Please read carefully what I have written. I specifically wrote "Nazi German" repeatedly. If I had wanted to accuse Germans as a whole I would simply have written "German". I think you are probably doing this in innocence, but it is an old trick to try to deflect attacks on Nazi Germany onto the German people as a whole in order to make unjustified accusations of "race guilt". Please don't do it. It isn't intellectually honest.
.
You need to bone up on your history my man...less than 40,000 people died @ Belsen (not several hundred thousand....wow, where did you come up w/that one?!?!?!)...not from firing squads or gassings but more likely than not, over work, neglect and diet/disease. Not that they are any less dead or their deaths any less heinous but lets set the facts straight.sid guttridge wrote: Thank you for reinforcing my point about the limitations of the post-war trials. If only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of several hundred thousand human beings at Bergen Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
.
Again my man, do a little homework, and watch which authors you read...too much "pro-allied" trash is bad for you (RIP Stephen Ambrose). There is no blame shifted to the SS by the allies but indeed their hands were as "dirty" as the Germans for shooting innocents, raping, pillaging, etc. We are not even talking about the bombing campaign that was still leveling German cities long after they were any real threat and some of them totally undefended either from AAA or Fighters.sid guttridge wrote: So, the Allies had many reasons to shift the blame? If so, please list which were the Allied war crimes for which blame was shifted to the Waffen-SS?
.
You bone up on the truth for a bit and get back to us.sid guttridge wrote: Yup. I am all in favour of looking at the history and not the "BS". When my questions to you and Haen are answered we might see where the actual "BS" lies.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
mtranierman
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:23 pm
Haen: Your english is very good, much better than my German. I only know a few word that my grandfather taught me. His family was from Zurich.
Gentlemen: Please read each other's postings carefully before hitting "reply" if you don't know something for sure, posing it as a question is less likely to result in an impassioned "flame"
1. For the third time I will state, no one on this forum, nor did the Nuremburg trials say that all Waffen SS troops were war criminals. They designated the SS, which included a great many different offices and functions, a criminal organization. Bear in mind that SS elements were involved in the concentration camps and the einzatzkommandos.
The decision by Justice Jackson to put organizations on trial was controversial at the time and remains so from a jurisprudence standpoint. My sense of subsequent trials invovling war crimes is that they have avoided such blanket approaches and instead focused on trials of individuals.
The court's verdict "meant that anyone who was a member of the convicted organizations after 1939 was, automatically, a war criminal. . . however, exemptions were granted for anyone drafted into membership or who had no knowledge of the organizations criminal purposes." Persico, pp 396. Those exemptions largely eliminate most Waffen SS troops, who served honorably in the field, from that designation.
2. The Nuremburg trials were not the only war crimes trials to address atrocities commited by Nazi Germany and its allies.
Neither the Nuremburg trials or subsequent trials by the allies or those conducted by the FRG -- clearly independent of Soviet influence "singled out" the Waffen SS. The Nuremburg trials attempted to put responsiblity on multiple elements of German society, including the industrialists, the Wehrmacht, the NSDAP, SA, and so on. Not just the SS. Signficantly, the Gestapo and SD were charged separately from the SS.
3. No one on this forum is saying all Germans are "guilty" of anything.
4. No one on this forum is saying that the Nuremburg trials were perfect. There were inevitably some elements of "victors justice" to them. The winners created the rules, the charges and served as both prosecutors and judges. But that doesn't mean that 2 million Soviet POWs didn't die in captivity, that Jews, gypsies and others were not killed wholesale and so on.
It is true that the Soviets in particular were hardly in any position of moral authority to judge Germany given Stalin's responsibility for the deaths of 20 million of his own people in the 1920s in the Ukraine, the Katyn massacre, which Soviet prosecutors at Nuremburg tried to blame on Germany, the purges of the 1930s where the concept of public 'show trials' was pioneered, to be copied later by Hitler.
The trials also suffered greatly from their rapidity. Evidence that came to light later implicated individuals who were only used as witnessess against their peers in crimes themselves for example. SS General Karl Wolff for example was only a witness at Nuremburg but was later tried by a
German court in 1964. Please read Persico's Nuremburg and Interrogations The Nazi elite in Allied Hands, 1945 by Richard Overy.
5. Everyone on this forum should be aware that the Nuremburg trials of major war criminals was hardly the only trial of individuals charged with committing crimes against humanity in europe.
6. No one on this forum is saying that the allies committed no atrocities. That however does not mean that we should fall into the trap of moral equivalence. Both sides did bad things so it doesn't matter if one side did more bad things they are both equally guilty. That's like saying that the Bosnians and Croats killed some Serb prisoners and the Serbs massacre of 5000 unarmed men at Srebenica make them all equally unworthy of our intervention when clearly Serbia was the aggressor.
7. No one on this forum is denying that allied troops killed prisoners. Yes, in war sometimes killing prisoners is seen as the only military way to survive or to complete the mission. The example from Rhodesia was included in a post. That does not mean that because both sides did it that it was okay. And in some cases it was hard to justify from a military standpoint, Malmedy for example is hard to justify.
Gentlemen: Please read each other's postings carefully before hitting "reply" if you don't know something for sure, posing it as a question is less likely to result in an impassioned "flame"
1. For the third time I will state, no one on this forum, nor did the Nuremburg trials say that all Waffen SS troops were war criminals. They designated the SS, which included a great many different offices and functions, a criminal organization. Bear in mind that SS elements were involved in the concentration camps and the einzatzkommandos.
The decision by Justice Jackson to put organizations on trial was controversial at the time and remains so from a jurisprudence standpoint. My sense of subsequent trials invovling war crimes is that they have avoided such blanket approaches and instead focused on trials of individuals.
The court's verdict "meant that anyone who was a member of the convicted organizations after 1939 was, automatically, a war criminal. . . however, exemptions were granted for anyone drafted into membership or who had no knowledge of the organizations criminal purposes." Persico, pp 396. Those exemptions largely eliminate most Waffen SS troops, who served honorably in the field, from that designation.
2. The Nuremburg trials were not the only war crimes trials to address atrocities commited by Nazi Germany and its allies.
Neither the Nuremburg trials or subsequent trials by the allies or those conducted by the FRG -- clearly independent of Soviet influence "singled out" the Waffen SS. The Nuremburg trials attempted to put responsiblity on multiple elements of German society, including the industrialists, the Wehrmacht, the NSDAP, SA, and so on. Not just the SS. Signficantly, the Gestapo and SD were charged separately from the SS.
3. No one on this forum is saying all Germans are "guilty" of anything.
4. No one on this forum is saying that the Nuremburg trials were perfect. There were inevitably some elements of "victors justice" to them. The winners created the rules, the charges and served as both prosecutors and judges. But that doesn't mean that 2 million Soviet POWs didn't die in captivity, that Jews, gypsies and others were not killed wholesale and so on.
It is true that the Soviets in particular were hardly in any position of moral authority to judge Germany given Stalin's responsibility for the deaths of 20 million of his own people in the 1920s in the Ukraine, the Katyn massacre, which Soviet prosecutors at Nuremburg tried to blame on Germany, the purges of the 1930s where the concept of public 'show trials' was pioneered, to be copied later by Hitler.
The trials also suffered greatly from their rapidity. Evidence that came to light later implicated individuals who were only used as witnessess against their peers in crimes themselves for example. SS General Karl Wolff for example was only a witness at Nuremburg but was later tried by a
German court in 1964. Please read Persico's Nuremburg and Interrogations The Nazi elite in Allied Hands, 1945 by Richard Overy.
5. Everyone on this forum should be aware that the Nuremburg trials of major war criminals was hardly the only trial of individuals charged with committing crimes against humanity in europe.
6. No one on this forum is saying that the allies committed no atrocities. That however does not mean that we should fall into the trap of moral equivalence. Both sides did bad things so it doesn't matter if one side did more bad things they are both equally guilty. That's like saying that the Bosnians and Croats killed some Serb prisoners and the Serbs massacre of 5000 unarmed men at Srebenica make them all equally unworthy of our intervention when clearly Serbia was the aggressor.
7. No one on this forum is denying that allied troops killed prisoners. Yes, in war sometimes killing prisoners is seen as the only military way to survive or to complete the mission. The example from Rhodesia was included in a post. That does not mean that because both sides did it that it was okay. And in some cases it was hard to justify from a military standpoint, Malmedy for example is hard to justify.
veritas
-
fknorr
Here is a list I posted on another "forum". This is just a partial list of killings by Americans (primarily) at the latter part of the war against primarily SS troops. It is amazing with how rampant Allied killings of German POWs was, that we still have such good press.mtranierman wrote: 6. No one on this forum is saying that the allies committed no atrocities. That however does not mean that we should fall into the trap of moral equivalence. Both sides did bad things so it doesn't matter if one side did more bad things they are both equally guilty. That's like saying that the Bosnians and Croats killed some Serb prisoners and the Serbs massacre of 5000 unarmed men at Srebenica make them all equally unworthy of our intervention when clearly Serbia was the aggressor.
7. No one on this forum is denying that allied troops killed prisoners. Yes, in war sometimes killing prisoners is seen as the only military way to survive or to complete the mission. The example from Rhodesia was included in a post. That does not mean that because both sides did it that it was okay. And in some cases it was hard to justify from a military standpoint, Malmedy for example is hard to justify.
THIS LIST IS NOT COMPLETE...it was forwarded to me by a researcher and I believe was originally taken from Der Freiwillige. THIS IS ALSO NOT POSTED TO CHANGE ANYONE'S OPINION ON GERMAN WAR CRIMES! This is posted to show what any rational person knows already, that the allied armies are no different than any other army in any age...there are always a few bad eggs.
In regards to "moral equivalence", there was no (to any real extent) systematic execution of the Germans by the allies in any sort of pogrom or camp system. Therefore you should not lump German Camp attrocities and German Combat crimes together. The "holocaust" stuff is totally separate and one should judge German combat troops and various crimes committed against their allied counterparts, against the crimes committed by the allies against the Germans...not lumped in with the death camp stuff. When you compare "apples to apples", you see that no nation can take the moral high ground in that regard.
In regards to your reference of Malmedy, I am assuming that you are speaking of the Massacre of American troops by the SS. If that is the case, then you are leaving out the remainder of the story...the parts about how as "payback", German POWs for the next few days (weeks?) were few and far between. Not that there were none to be had, but that very few made it back to allied captivity. You also seem to leave out that post war scouring of POW camps for anyone remotely involved with this incident and Kampfegruppe Pieper in particular was especially rampant as well as, the brutal captivity (beatings, mock executions, etc) and ultimately sentencing of people, such as Pieper, to death for only being in command of the unit...not participating, not ordering, just there. Ultimately Pieper was released only to be murdered in France by communists (socialists?).
The truth is far more complicated than some of you seem to want to address and/or acknowledge.
****************** list below ******************
Here is a translation of the list of alleged American war crimes against German armed forces and civilians in WWII, compiled by Prof. Franz Seidler and Alfred de Zayas in their „Kriegsverbrechen in Europa und im Nahen Osten im 20. Jahrhundert.," as posted by fknorr. I have taken the liberty of dividing the allegations into dated and undated events, with the dated events arranged chronologically and the undated events arranged in order of appearance in the text. The German text from which the translation was made follows each entry, so our readers don't have to rely on my rough German "skills."
A. Dated Events
(1) Charantan, Normandy (14 Jun 1944) A captured NCO named Fanja was killed by a neck shot. (CharantanlNormandie (14. 6. 1944): Der Unteroffizier Fanja wurde nach der Gefangennahme durch Genick schuß getötet.)
(2) Culot, Normandy (Jul 1944): Out of control shooting of captured German soldiers, or shooting out of control German PoWs. (Culot/Normandie (Juli 1944): Erschießung in Gefangenschaft geratener deutscher Soldaten.)
(3) Le Mans (7 Aug 1944): Multiple shootings of captured SS men from Combat Group Fick of the 17th SS PanzerGrenadier Division "Goetz von Berlichingen." (Le Mans (7. B. 1944): Aus der Kampfgruppe Fick der 17. SS-Pz.-Gren.-Division. „Götz von Berlichingen” wurden mehrere gefangene SS-Männer erschossen.)
(4) Klein Punach near Metz (20 Sept 1944): Prisoners were called out of a main group and shot in the back. (Klein Punach bei Metz (20. 9. 1944): Gefangene wurden zum Weggehen aufgefordert und in den
Rücken geschossen.)
(5) Waldhausen: On 11 Jan 1945 10 captured SS soldiers were shot by the Americans. (Waldhausen (11. 1. 1945): 10 gefangene SS-Soldaten werden von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(6) Tiefenbach (Easter Sunday 1945): Three captured Waffen-SS men were shot by Americans. (Tiefenbach (Osterdienstag 1945): Drei Kriegsgefangene der Waffen-SS werden von US-Amerikanern er-schossen.)
(7) Willenbacherhof (10 Apr 1945): Between 10 and 20 wounded German PoWs were shot by the Americans. (Willenbacherhof (10. 4. 1945): 10 bis 20 verwundete und gefangene deutsche Soldaten von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(8) Hermersberg: On 11 Apr 1945 a German soldier was strangled to death by an American with a wire garotte and a spade. (Hermersberg (11. 4. 1945): Landser mit Drahtschlingen erdrosselt und mit Spaten von US-Amerikanern totgeschlagen.)
(9) Lampoldshausen (Gemeindefriedhof/ Waldstück Fuchsberg): On 13 Apr 1945 six German POWs were shot by Americans. (Lampoldshausen (Gemeindefriedhof/ Waldstück Fuchsberg): 13. 4. 1945: Sechs gefangene deutsche Soldaten von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(10) Hermersberg: On 15 Apr 1945 captured SS soldiers were machine-gunned by Americans. (Hermersberg (15. 4. 1945): Gefangene SS-Soldaten werden von hinten mit Maschinengewehren von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(11) Harkerode (15 Apr 1945): 16 captured Hitler Youths were shot by Americans in a quarry. (Harkerode (15. April 1945): 16 gefangene Hitlerjungen in einem Steinbruch von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(12) Treseburg (18 Apr 1945): 14 hostages, including 11 Hitler Youth, were killed by American neck shots. (Treseburg (18. 4. 1945): 14 Geiseln, darunter 11 Hitlerjungen, durch Genickschüsse durch Amerikaner er-mordet (in Richtung Allrode).)
(13) Lippach near Lauchheim: On 22 Apr 1945 36 German soldiers who had been captured by the Americans were killed by neck shots or by having their heads smashed in ("brained"); about 20 women were raped. (Lippach bei Lauchheim (22. 4. 1945): 36 deutsche Soldaten wurden nach Gefangennahme von US-Amerikanern durch Genickschuß oder Einschlagen der Schädel umgebracht; etwa 20 Frauen vergewaltigt.)
(14) Eberstätten in the provincial district of Pfaffenhofen on the Ilm River: On 28 Apr 1945 German PoWs were placed about 50 meters away and then shot "while attempting to escape." (Eberstätten im Landkreis Pfaffenhofen a. d. Ilm (28. 4. 1945): Deutsche Kriegsgefangene wurden aus etwa 50 Meter Entfernung „auf der Flucht erschossen”.)
(15) Tittling (29 Apr 1945) The mayor was arrested and shot. (Tittling (29. 4. 1945): Festnahme und Erschießung des Bürgermeisters.)
(16) Dachau concentration camp: On 29 Apr 1945 134 members of the guard battalion were executed by American machine-gun fire and 40 others were killed by prisoners. (KL-Dachau (29. 4. 1945): 134 Angehörige des Wachsturmbannes durch amerikanisches MG-Feuer und 40 weitere durch Häftlinge ermordet.)
(17) Dachau concentration camp: On 29 Apr 1945 346 severely injured patients at the Dachau military hospital, along with nurses, doctors, kitchen personnel and others were killed by American machine-gun fire. The SS personnel were not part of the concentration camp cadre, but belonged to the 5th Training Battalion of the "Wiking" Division. (KL-Dachau (29. 4. 1945): 346 Schwer- und Schwerstverwundete des Dachauer Kriegslazarettes, sowie Schwestern, Arzte, Küchenpersonal u.a. durch amerikanische MG-Salven ermordet. Die SS-Leute gehörten nicht zu der Stammannschaft, sondern zum Ausbildungs-Btl. 5 der Division „Wiking”.)
(18) Mauerkirchen-Altheim near Braunau on the Inn River: On 30 Apr 1945 there was (Ausplünderung -- plunder, pillage, spoliation, looting, sacking, rape, despoilment, pilferage, scavenging) of German soldiers. (Mauerkirchen-Altheim bei Braunau/ Inn (30. 4. 1945): Ausplünderung deutscher Soldaten.)
(19) Kleinweil (Großweil postal service): On 30 Apr 1945 two captured German soldiers were shot by the Americans. (Kleinweil (Post Großweil) – 30. 4. 1945: Erschießung von zwei deutschen gefangenen Soldaten durch US-Amerikaner.)
(20) Trassheim near Ruderfing (1 May 1945): US soldiers shot two civilians. (Trassheim bei Ruderfing (1. 5. 1945): US-Soldaten erschießen zwei Zivilisten.)
(21) Oberframmern (1 May 1945): Seven German PoWs were driven to the Dorfstrasse (Dorf Street or perhaps the main road through the town) and shot by the Americans. (Oberframmern (1. 5. 1945): Sieben deutsche Kriegsgefangene wurden von US-Amerikanern durch die Dorfstraße getrieben und erschossen.)
(22) On the way to Altheim, at the beginning of May 1945, Americans shot German PoWs who were too tired to keep up with the column of prisoners. (Verlegung nach Altheim (Anfang Mai 1945): US-Amerikaner erschießen deutsche Gefangene, die aus der Kolonne liefen oder wegen Erschöpfung nicht mehr weiter konnten.)
B. Undated events:
(1) Erching (at the customs house): A captured German NCO was shot by an American. (Erching (Zollhaus): Gefangener deutscher Unteroffizier wurde von Amerikanern erschossen.)
(2) Herbolzheim: Seven SS soldiers who were captured by the Americans were shot. (Herbolzheim: Sieben SS-Soldaten werden nach Gefangennahme von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(3) Kressbach: Six captured SS men were killed by neck shots. (Kressbach: Sechs gefangene SS-Männer durch Genickschuß getötet.)
(4) Neuenbeken field hospital: Two wounded SS soldiers were taken out of their beds and then executed by neck shots. (Feldlazarett Neuenbeken: Zwei verwundete SS-Soldaten wurden aus den Betten geholt und durch Genickschüsse erschossen.)
(5) Nordborchen: A number of captured SS soldiers were shot. (Nordborchen: Erschießung von mehreren gefangenen SS-Soldaten.)
(6) Friedhof von Etteln: 27 captured SS soldiers were killed by neck shots. (Friedhof von Etteln: 27 gefangene SS-Soldaten durch Genickschuß getötet.)
(7) Henglan: Four German prisoners were shot. (Henglan: Erschießung von vier deutschen Gefangenen.)
(8) Paderborn area: Approximately 30 German soldiers and Hitler Youth were shot through the head; a couple of them were tied up. (Raum Paderborn: etwa 30 deutsche Soldaten und Hitlerjungen wurden durch Kopfschüsse getötet (einige starben gefesselt).)
(9) Northwest Upper Harz in the Paderborn area: Approximately 100 captured German soldiers were murdered. (Nordwestlicher Oberharz/Raum Paderborn: Etwa 100 gefangene deutsche Soldaten ermordet.)
(10) Northwest Upper Harz around Osnabrueck: 17 SS soldiers were executed by neck shots. Five dedicated Hitler Youths were hanged by Americans from a tree. (Nordwestlicher Oberharz/Osnabrück: 17 SS-Soldaten durch Genickschuß umgebracht. Fünf Hitlerjungen wer-den, nachdem sie sich ergaben, von den US-Amerikanern an einen Baum gehängt und totgeprügelt.)
(11) Offenhausen near Hersbruck: Three young Waffen-SS PoWs were shot by Americans. (Offenhausen bei Hersbruck: Drei gefangene junge Soldaten der Waffen-SS wurden von US-Amerikanern erschossen.)
(12) Waschbach near Bad Mergentheim: Drunken Americans raped women and young girls. (Waschbach bei Bad Mergentheim: Betrunkene US-Amerikaner vergewaltigen Frauen und Mädchen.)
(13) Pfaffenhofen: Americans shot 17 captured German soldiers. (Pfaffenhofen: US-Amerikaner erschießen 17 gefangene deutsche Soldaten.)
(14) North of Dachau – Webling: A number of captured German soldiers from Battle Group Truchsess were shot. (Nördlich von Dachau – Webling: mehrere gefangene deutsche Soldaten der Kampfgruppe von Truchseß wurden erschossen.)
(15) Eggstätt near Endorf: Americans shot two German soldiers, after making them dig their own graves. (Eggstätt bei Endorf: US-Amerikaner erschießen zwei Soldaten, die vorher ihre Grablöcher schaufeln mußten.)
(16) Atenau: American troops shot all German soldiers who were trying to surrender. (Atenau: US-Amerikaner erschießen alle Soldaten, die sich vorher ergeben hatten.)
(17) Hengersberg(?): Americans shot the mayor, his wife, two schoolchildren and a "Zufallszeugen." (Hengersberg(?): Erschießung des Bürgermeisters, seiner Frau, zwei schulpflichtigen Kindern und eines Zufallszeugen durch die Amis.)
(18) In the hamlet of Zell, 18 captured anti-aircraft troops were murdered by neck shots. (Ortschaft Zell: 18 Flaksoldaten wurden nach Gefangennahme durch Genickschuß ermordet.)
-
mtranierman
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:23 pm
Herr Knorr:
Thanks for sharing that list. I am not an expert on this subject but I would pose a question: were more Waffen SS troops who surrendered to the allies in the West summarily executed than Heer troops? If you made me guess I would say yes, both in absolute terms and in proportional terms but that's only a guess. Again, no one on this forum has denied that U.S. troops killed prisoners, including Waffen SS members.
You are correct that killing prisoners by either side and large scale killing operations are apples and oranges.
My only reason for including references to the holocaust was because the SS was designated a criminal organization, (the essence of the question that started this thread) a broad sweeping charge that was driven not by the actions of the Waffen SS, who as I previously stated, mostly served honorably in the field, but because of the actions of the non-Waffen SS elements involved in the holocaust.
I am sure you saw my earlier post where I decried the stereotypical attitud that the Waffen SS were all bad and the Heer troops were all good. Nonsense, of course, especially now that we know that individual Heer troops volunteered to go on "jew hunts" with the einzatzkommandos.
The world is rarely black or white.
Truth
Thanks for sharing that list. I am not an expert on this subject but I would pose a question: were more Waffen SS troops who surrendered to the allies in the West summarily executed than Heer troops? If you made me guess I would say yes, both in absolute terms and in proportional terms but that's only a guess. Again, no one on this forum has denied that U.S. troops killed prisoners, including Waffen SS members.
You are correct that killing prisoners by either side and large scale killing operations are apples and oranges.
My only reason for including references to the holocaust was because the SS was designated a criminal organization, (the essence of the question that started this thread) a broad sweeping charge that was driven not by the actions of the Waffen SS, who as I previously stated, mostly served honorably in the field, but because of the actions of the non-Waffen SS elements involved in the holocaust.
I am sure you saw my earlier post where I decried the stereotypical attitud that the Waffen SS were all bad and the Heer troops were all good. Nonsense, of course, especially now that we know that individual Heer troops volunteered to go on "jew hunts" with the einzatzkommandos.
The world is rarely black or white.
Truth
veritas
-
fknorr
I am not sure about the numbers, anyone in the wrong place, wrong time, snipers and anyone wearing camouflage were generally shot out of hand...the latter because they were associated w/the uniforms of the SS.mtranierman wrote:Herr Knorr:
Thanks for sharing that list. I am not an expert on this subject but I would pose a question: were more Waffen SS troops who surrendered to the allies in the West summarily executed than Heer troops? If you made me guess I would say yes, both in absolute terms and in proportional terms but that's only a guess. Again, no one on this forum has denied that U.S. troops killed prisoners, including Waffen SS members.
You are correct that killing prisoners by either side and large scale killing operations are apples and oranges.
My only reason for including references to the holocaust was because the SS was designated a criminal organization, (the essence of the question that started this thread) a broad sweeping charge that was driven not by the actions of the Waffen SS, who as I previously stated, mostly served honorably in the field, but because of the actions of the non-Waffen SS elements involved in the holocaust.
I am sure you saw my earlier post where I decried the stereotypical attitud that the Waffen SS were all bad and the Heer troops were all good. Nonsense, of course, especially now that we know that individual Heer troops volunteered to go on "jew hunts" with the einzatzkommandos.
The world is rarely black or white.
Truth
It is hard to give a definitive answer for there were far more Heer divisions than Waffen-SS divisions so by default, more Heer individuals were potentially in harms way.
Allied propoganda turned these individuals w/the runes on their collars into all monsters when the facts are quite different than perception.
Lets also keep in mind that volunteers made up large groups of people that committed war crimes (Russian Front)...Latvians, Ukranians, etc...we seem to overlook this little fact as well.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi fknorr,
So you ARE deliberately misreading my posts. Shame on you.
Where did I write that the Allies were impartial? What I actually wrote was that "Judges should be independent".
The Allies were as a whole undoubtedly partial. Whether the trials were conducted impartially or not is another matter. Furthermore, even if the trials were partial, it doesn't necessarily mean that justice was not done. That is why I asked which particular innocents were convicted at Nuremberg? Are you planning to answer this?
We will never know who the trials missed out, because there were no trials for the executors of the vast majority of the crimes committed. All we can say with absolute certainty is that given the millions of culpable deaths that occurred the number of trials conducted was disproportionately small.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Still making up my posts for me? I will say it again, as you clearly did not read my last post: "If I had wanted to accuse Germans as a whole I would simply have written "German"........ it is an old trick to try to deflect attacks on Nazi Germany onto the the German people as a whole in order to bring unjustified accusations of "race guilt". Please don't do it. It is intellectually dishonest."
Or, to put it in your chosen terms:
a) Nope. It is blindingly obvious that everyone in Germany was not a party member. In fact only a small minority were card carrying Nazis.
b) And even of the card carrying Nazis only a minority were actively engaged in war crimes.
You are not arguing with me on these points, but with yourself.
I am sorry to get the Bergen-Belsen figure wrong. It was due to an unacceptably cursory reading of the post that raised the subject. You are right. The figure I have is 37,000 deaths.
Now, to return to my question, if only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of 37,000 human beings at Bergen-Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
Good. So we are now agreed that "there was no blame shifted to the SS by the Allies...." Progress!
Why are the Allies suddenly responsible because German cities had no flak or fighter? Don't be silly. The provision of defence for its cities was the duty of the German Government. If it couldn't defend them, the German government should either have declared them "Open Cities" and stopped all their military-related activities in accordance with international law or surrendered.
Cheers,
Sid.
So you ARE deliberately misreading my posts. Shame on you.
Where did I write that the Allies were impartial? What I actually wrote was that "Judges should be independent".
The Allies were as a whole undoubtedly partial. Whether the trials were conducted impartially or not is another matter. Furthermore, even if the trials were partial, it doesn't necessarily mean that justice was not done. That is why I asked which particular innocents were convicted at Nuremberg? Are you planning to answer this?
We will never know who the trials missed out, because there were no trials for the executors of the vast majority of the crimes committed. All we can say with absolute certainty is that given the millions of culpable deaths that occurred the number of trials conducted was disproportionately small.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Still making up my posts for me? I will say it again, as you clearly did not read my last post: "If I had wanted to accuse Germans as a whole I would simply have written "German"........ it is an old trick to try to deflect attacks on Nazi Germany onto the the German people as a whole in order to bring unjustified accusations of "race guilt". Please don't do it. It is intellectually dishonest."
Or, to put it in your chosen terms:
a) Nope. It is blindingly obvious that everyone in Germany was not a party member. In fact only a small minority were card carrying Nazis.
b) And even of the card carrying Nazis only a minority were actively engaged in war crimes.
You are not arguing with me on these points, but with yourself.
I am sorry to get the Bergen-Belsen figure wrong. It was due to an unacceptably cursory reading of the post that raised the subject. You are right. The figure I have is 37,000 deaths.
Now, to return to my question, if only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of 37,000 human beings at Bergen-Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
Good. So we are now agreed that "there was no blame shifted to the SS by the Allies...." Progress!
Why are the Allies suddenly responsible because German cities had no flak or fighter? Don't be silly. The provision of defence for its cities was the duty of the German Government. If it couldn't defend them, the German government should either have declared them "Open Cities" and stopped all their military-related activities in accordance with international law or surrendered.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi fknorr,
Thanks for the list.
A few observations:
1) Of course, if these crimes occurred, the culprits should have been tried and punished.
2) I presume that the list includes all the cases for which the authors could find some evidence, although, given that names and dates are missing in many cases, some would probably not stand up in court.
3) Nevertheless, it presumably gives a reasonable idea of the order of magnitude of the problem in the West in 1944-45.
4) If so, it looks to be a comparitively minor problem compared with that experienced within the Wehrmacht around Europe as a whole, where orders for the mass execution of prisoners sometimes came down from on high and in which there were official ratios of how many hostages were to be executed in reprisals (100 for a soldier and 200 for an officer, I think).
5) I doubt that Germans were any more likely to kill prisoners on their own initiative than were Americans, Britons, etc. However, they were far more likely to kill prisoners on orders from higher authority than were the Anglo-Americans. As they captured comparitively few Anglo-Americans, this mostly shows up amongst other, non-Anglo-American national groups.
6) Unlikely the Army, the Waffen-SS as an institution cannot be completely disassociated from the wider SS camp systems. For example, there was some cross transference of manpower, much Waffen-SS equipment was manufactured in camp factories and one camp even had a minor Waffen-SS insitution within the camp itself (see earlier threads on Feldgrau and Tessin for details).
7) Peiper was not actually executed, so I don't think he is a very good example of injustice in the post-war trials system. The fact that Peiper was murdered by unknown assailants decades later, whilst freely living in an ex-Allied country, has no bearing on the validity of the post war trials.
Finally, the truth is far more complicated than ANY OF US know. There is no particular reason to believe that you are the "Chosen One" who has been granted any more insight into "The Truth" than the rest of us. Get a grip on your ego and recognise that there are other posters out there with some knowledge and analytical skills that you may not yourself possess. And even if we haven't got your knowledge and analytical skills, it shouldn't prevent you from being polite and displaying a modicum of humility.
Cheers,
Sid.
Thanks for the list.
A few observations:
1) Of course, if these crimes occurred, the culprits should have been tried and punished.
2) I presume that the list includes all the cases for which the authors could find some evidence, although, given that names and dates are missing in many cases, some would probably not stand up in court.
3) Nevertheless, it presumably gives a reasonable idea of the order of magnitude of the problem in the West in 1944-45.
4) If so, it looks to be a comparitively minor problem compared with that experienced within the Wehrmacht around Europe as a whole, where orders for the mass execution of prisoners sometimes came down from on high and in which there were official ratios of how many hostages were to be executed in reprisals (100 for a soldier and 200 for an officer, I think).
5) I doubt that Germans were any more likely to kill prisoners on their own initiative than were Americans, Britons, etc. However, they were far more likely to kill prisoners on orders from higher authority than were the Anglo-Americans. As they captured comparitively few Anglo-Americans, this mostly shows up amongst other, non-Anglo-American national groups.
6) Unlikely the Army, the Waffen-SS as an institution cannot be completely disassociated from the wider SS camp systems. For example, there was some cross transference of manpower, much Waffen-SS equipment was manufactured in camp factories and one camp even had a minor Waffen-SS insitution within the camp itself (see earlier threads on Feldgrau and Tessin for details).
7) Peiper was not actually executed, so I don't think he is a very good example of injustice in the post-war trials system. The fact that Peiper was murdered by unknown assailants decades later, whilst freely living in an ex-Allied country, has no bearing on the validity of the post war trials.
Finally, the truth is far more complicated than ANY OF US know. There is no particular reason to believe that you are the "Chosen One" who has been granted any more insight into "The Truth" than the rest of us. Get a grip on your ego and recognise that there are other posters out there with some knowledge and analytical skills that you may not yourself possess. And even if we haven't got your knowledge and analytical skills, it shouldn't prevent you from being polite and displaying a modicum of humility.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
fknorr
Sid, are you intentionally being silly or is your normal state (head in sand).
Come on, you do not believe these guys received a fair trial do you?
Was it the allies fault that they were undefended, no, but if all you are doing is bombing civilians/creating havoc for no real strategic purpose, then I have a problem with it. In the case of Wurtzburg, the bombing of the city actually delayed it's capitulation for it was not going to be defended, but after it was turned into a pile of rubble local German commanders used it and fought for it.
The german commanders should have surrendered instead of seeing their civilians murdered from the air? Maybe but I wonder if we should have taken that same stance in our own history when it looked like the the British were going to put down our rebellion or when the South actually looked as if it was going to pull off a victory.
The German leadership saw the writing on the wall and wrongly drug the war out. They new what unconditional surrender meant and their worst fears came true with the starvation of their population, crimes committed against them by the victors, their men and whatever was left that could be "liberated" was hauled off to Russia, France, etc to rebuild, etc, etc.
There is a lot more to WWII my friend than German attrocities committed by a very small percentage of the population. My suggestion is that you bone up a bit on the other aspects...history deserves a reasonably impartial eye.
Using this logic, lets say I rape and kill your wife...are you with me so far. I think you'd be a little pissed, right? What about her family, think they might be out for a little payback. Well, using your logic (and that of the allies), it would be OK for say YOU to be my judge, listening to my defense, setting my punishment and your dead wife's father would be say my defense attorney. Man, I believe I'd be acquitted, how about you.sid guttridge wrote:The Allies were as a whole undoubtedly partial. Whether the trials were conducted impartially or not is another matter. Furthermore, even if the trials were partial, it doesn't necessarily mean that justice was not done.
.
Come on, you do not believe these guys received a fair trial do you?
I do not have a hard-on for holocaust stuff, I know what happened but do not continue to rehash the same stuff and continue to beat that particular dead horse. If I was to answer you though, I would say there was definately no reason to charge either Doenitz or Raeder, and Speer is equally iffy. As stated, this is not my area of interest, if you desire me to look it up for you , I will do so.sid guttridge wrote: That is why I asked which particular innocents were convicted at Nuremberg? Are you planning to answer this?
.
sid guttridge wrote: We will never know who the trials missed out, because there were no trials for the executors of the vast majority of the crimes committed. All we can say with absolute certainty is that given the millions of culpable deaths that occurred the number of trials conducted was disproportionately small.
.
No it does not mean more people needed to be hunted down and procecuted. If 37,000 people died at Belsen, how many Germans would you think fair to punish? I cannot find the link now, but one of the Women executed after serving at Belsen (and Aushwitz) was accused of "boxing the ears" of one of the detainees...wow, that is severe. I am not saying there were no guilty there. I am not saying more escaped justice, but you cannot say (without knowing the facts) that just because "X" number died, we need to find "X" guilty. At Belsen, it was not a "death camp" per se, so most of the inmates died of neglect as opposed to some sort of pogrom to exterminate them. I would go out on a limb here and say that if you were to say these guards (that you feel need to be punished) were guilty of anything, it would be apathy. If down at the individual guard level, there are no blankets to give, no food or medicine to hand out is it the individual guards fault? They (the allies) punished all of the high level policy setters they could lay their hands on...were more probably guilty, without a doubt but where are you people going to draw the line, when are you going to give it a rest?sid guttridge wrote: Now, to return to my question, if only about 12 people were convicted of the killing of 37,000 human beings at Bergen-Belsen surely that illustrates how far short the trials fell in their pursuit of all the guilty parties? Doesn't this indicate that more, not less, war crimes trials were actually needed to do justice to all the victims?
.
Again, I think what was said was the allies needed to shift "focus" not blame. It is evident that it worked for you still want to track down unpunished guards at concentration camps and totally disregard allied crimes.sid guttridge wrote: Good. So we are now agreed that "there was no blame shifted to the SS by the Allies...." Progress!
.
Just as with the statement directly above, I bet you'd talk of how evil the Germans were because of the London "Blitz" or the V-weapons, but find no fault with the allied bombing campaign against the Germans. In case you are unaware, the number of people killed in England during the entire war from German planes/V-weapons was about 60,000. Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin EACH had that number of casualties. Cities like Dresden, like Wurtzburg, like Pflorscheim (sp) were all bombed weeks before Germany's surrender, with the exception of Dresden (and it's rail hub), all were of no value other than terror and all were undefended.sid guttridge wrote: Why are the Allies suddenly responsible because German cities had no flak or fighter? Don't be silly. The provision of defence for its cities was the duty of the German Government. If it couldn't defend them, the German government should either have declared them "Open Cities" and stopped all their military-related activities in accordance with international law or surrendered.
.
Was it the allies fault that they were undefended, no, but if all you are doing is bombing civilians/creating havoc for no real strategic purpose, then I have a problem with it. In the case of Wurtzburg, the bombing of the city actually delayed it's capitulation for it was not going to be defended, but after it was turned into a pile of rubble local German commanders used it and fought for it.
The german commanders should have surrendered instead of seeing their civilians murdered from the air? Maybe but I wonder if we should have taken that same stance in our own history when it looked like the the British were going to put down our rebellion or when the South actually looked as if it was going to pull off a victory.
The German leadership saw the writing on the wall and wrongly drug the war out. They new what unconditional surrender meant and their worst fears came true with the starvation of their population, crimes committed against them by the victors, their men and whatever was left that could be "liberated" was hauled off to Russia, France, etc to rebuild, etc, etc.
There is a lot more to WWII my friend than German attrocities committed by a very small percentage of the population. My suggestion is that you bone up a bit on the other aspects...history deserves a reasonably impartial eye.
Fknorr
I would like to add my two cents. Do I believe that the allied could
have committed crimes......of course.
I remember an Allied War Veteran once saying....
" I had facced off with them so I think they were lousy Fighters/
Perhaps if they had brought their Mothers along it may have been
a bit better. In fact when they looked down the barrel of my
weapon they just cried so I just helped them along by taking
them out of their misery. And getting on with my job.
As we took no prisoner at the time (Followed Orders).
These are the exact words of the allied vet.......
You be the judge.
I would like to add my two cents. Do I believe that the allied could
have committed crimes......of course.
I remember an Allied War Veteran once saying....
" I had facced off with them so I think they were lousy Fighters/
Perhaps if they had brought their Mothers along it may have been
a bit better. In fact when they looked down the barrel of my
weapon they just cried so I just helped them along by taking
them out of their misery. And getting on with my job.
As we took no prisoner at the time (Followed Orders).
These are the exact words of the allied vet.......
You be the judge.
-
fknorr
I am not sure what point you are trying to conveyAnnelie wrote:Fknorr
I would like to add my two cents. Do I believe that the allied could
have committed crimes......of course.
I remember an Allied War Veteran once saying....
" I had facced off with them so I think they were lousy Fighters/
Perhaps if they had brought their Mothers along it may have been
a bit better. In fact when they looked down the barrel of my
weapon they just cried so I just helped them along by taking
them out of their misery. And getting on with my job.
As we took no prisoner at the time (Followed Orders).
These are the exact words of the allied vet.......
You be the judge.
but it sounds like your "vet" was a cook or something and/or faced some Volkssturm unit for most people who came up against the Germans had a certain degree of respect for them, their tactics, tenacity and training...despite their hatred. I am trying to state for the record that other crimes happened...not trying to re-write history. I am not trying to convict some old geezer living in Kansas somewhere for following orders (not taking prisoners), being scared, or any other reason they might have had for murder (that's what it was, no matter whose side you were on).
People it seems cannot separate the Holocaust from the rest of the war and turn a blind eye to the skeletons in their own closets as they run around like nuts repeating their mantra "but the holocaust, but the camps!"
I am pretty black and white when it comes to death...it is murder whether it is some jew kneeling in front of a trench, someone who happens to be wearing runes on their collar or some mother and child looking to the sky as bombs rain down on their defenseless homes. Somewhere there is a father, mother, husband, wife, etc that weeps for this needless loss...for what end?
I get as mad at people who deny the holocaust as those who deny that the allies had some evil men in their ranks (the same small percentage as their counterparts did.)
Why is it still us vs. them?
Why cannot people see/admit the truth?
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Annelie,
This isn't the first time you have quoted what are purported to be "exact words" which almost certainly are not. If you are going to quote what are supposed to be the exact words, at least make the English sound convincing.
Poor English, no when, no where, no who and no source.
The sentiments expressed are possible, but this mangled pseudo-quote is evidence of nothing.
You ask us to judge. I judge that your "evidence" is inadmissble unless you can tighten it up a lot.
Cheers,
Sid.
This isn't the first time you have quoted what are purported to be "exact words" which almost certainly are not. If you are going to quote what are supposed to be the exact words, at least make the English sound convincing.
Poor English, no when, no where, no who and no source.
The sentiments expressed are possible, but this mangled pseudo-quote is evidence of nothing.
You ask us to judge. I judge that your "evidence" is inadmissble unless you can tighten it up a lot.
Cheers,
Sid.