Sid
There was a truce after the battle at New Orleans. An American officer expressed his dismay at the sight of so many slaughtered British soldiers. His Brit counterpart (from the 95th as I recall) replied 'That's nothing. You should have seen the breach at Badajof!'
cheers
Reb
EU and US vote against SS motion
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
accusations
Sid, why do you make constant remarks how "Waffen-SS units were accused of crimes more often then the Heer"? I can accuse everybody of some crime but that doesn´t make it so. The key factor is who accuses whom. My rule of thumb is is that any accusation by any communist or his useful idiot is BS. Remember, communist´s truth depends on whether or not it helps the revolution. Also any accusation by any supporter of Frankie the Rat or Winnie the Drunk is more than likely concocted for political aims.
And why isn´t the scorching of 80,000 civilians a more serious offense than killing of 300 civilians (former in Tokyo, the latter in your beloved Oradour)?
BTW, do you approve public monuments for folks like Custer (he excelled in ethnic cleansing and murder of civilians) or Colombo (responsible for the most complete genocide ever)?
And why isn´t the scorching of 80,000 civilians a more serious offense than killing of 300 civilians (former in Tokyo, the latter in your beloved Oradour)?
BTW, do you approve public monuments for folks like Custer (he excelled in ethnic cleansing and murder of civilians) or Colombo (responsible for the most complete genocide ever)?
Joe
There are more Indians in America now than there were were Columbus got here. Standard of living is, in many cases, much higher as well. I don't recall Columbus massacring anybody?! That sounds too much like the nonsense they teach in American public schools in place of history.
You might not have known this but in 1941 American Indians, including many Sioux (the guys Custer fought it out with) arrived at US Army recruiting stations with war bonnets on and rifles in hand, to sign up to help protect the US. A recent movie celebrated the exploits of the Navajo 'windtalkers' and believe me, nobody wants to mess with an Apache.
But, as Ten Bears said in 'The Outlaw Josie Wales,' governements are that sad breed of men he called 'the doubletongues.' Mine, yours, all of 'em. US governments betrayed the Indians routinely, lying, cheating and stealing. But the American people have always had a respect and admiration for Indians for the most part. And now they own most of the Gambling Cassinos and will soon be in a position to buy back NYC. That is certainly one of the milder forms of ethnic cleansing!
Custer was a gallant cavalry officer during the War Between the States but chose the wrong side. Most of his real atrocities occured in burning down the farms of pacifist Christians in the Shenendoah Valley. He was such an effective Cavalry officer (in battle) that my boys (the rebs) had a whole company of sharpshooters looking to punch his ticket.
In the west he 'was only following orders' (now where have I heard that before?) when he raided Black Kettle's village - a nasty piece of business but typical of yankee general (and war criminal) Phil Sheridan.
His demise came when he took one risk too many and Crazy Horse called his bluff. Custer forgot he was commanding second rate regulars with substandard weaponry - he'd gotten away with it while commanding his Michigan Brigade armed with Spencer repeaters.
As to Roosevelt. Yep - a socialist swine. As to Dresden / Tokyo etc - I agree although Sid will beat me up for it
.
As to Churchill - well, I don't care if a man takes a drink (or ten) but he did bungle up a number of military operations (his Greek fiasco comes to mind). But he gave Britain the kind of leadership they needed at some levels - particularly the home front. I still have misgivings about 'unconditional surrender' since to me it prolonged the war and helped defeat any German resistance to AH.
cheers
Reb
There are more Indians in America now than there were were Columbus got here. Standard of living is, in many cases, much higher as well. I don't recall Columbus massacring anybody?! That sounds too much like the nonsense they teach in American public schools in place of history.
You might not have known this but in 1941 American Indians, including many Sioux (the guys Custer fought it out with) arrived at US Army recruiting stations with war bonnets on and rifles in hand, to sign up to help protect the US. A recent movie celebrated the exploits of the Navajo 'windtalkers' and believe me, nobody wants to mess with an Apache.
But, as Ten Bears said in 'The Outlaw Josie Wales,' governements are that sad breed of men he called 'the doubletongues.' Mine, yours, all of 'em. US governments betrayed the Indians routinely, lying, cheating and stealing. But the American people have always had a respect and admiration for Indians for the most part. And now they own most of the Gambling Cassinos and will soon be in a position to buy back NYC. That is certainly one of the milder forms of ethnic cleansing!
Custer was a gallant cavalry officer during the War Between the States but chose the wrong side. Most of his real atrocities occured in burning down the farms of pacifist Christians in the Shenendoah Valley. He was such an effective Cavalry officer (in battle) that my boys (the rebs) had a whole company of sharpshooters looking to punch his ticket.
In the west he 'was only following orders' (now where have I heard that before?) when he raided Black Kettle's village - a nasty piece of business but typical of yankee general (and war criminal) Phil Sheridan.
His demise came when he took one risk too many and Crazy Horse called his bluff. Custer forgot he was commanding second rate regulars with substandard weaponry - he'd gotten away with it while commanding his Michigan Brigade armed with Spencer repeaters.
As to Roosevelt. Yep - a socialist swine. As to Dresden / Tokyo etc - I agree although Sid will beat me up for it
. As to Churchill - well, I don't care if a man takes a drink (or ten) but he did bungle up a number of military operations (his Greek fiasco comes to mind). But he gave Britain the kind of leadership they needed at some levels - particularly the home front. I still have misgivings about 'unconditional surrender' since to me it prolonged the war and helped defeat any German resistance to AH.
cheers
Reb
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Joe,
I keep repeating that the Waffen-SS was accused of far more war crimes than the far larger German Army because it shows that better behaviour by German troops than that exhibited by the Waffen-SS was possible. Indeed, it was normal.
This in turn indicates that the Waffen-SS was a flawed institution even by German standards and that it was quite rightly viewed at Nuremberg as different from the rest of the Wehrmacht.
No. The key factor is not who accuses who. According to your logic, if two people of different persuasions witness exactly the same incident, the evidence of only one of them may be valid even if they report exactly the same events.
I don't know. Why isn't the scorching of 80,000 civilians in the Tokyo fire raids a more serious offence than killing 300 civilians at Oradour?
(By the way, I have never initiated a thread on Oradour and have seldom ever mentioned it, so I am afraid that that my presumed love affair with the place is pure fantasy).
I have no objection to public monuments to the Waffen-SS or Custer provided there is a public willing to accept them. It is not as if Waffen-SS men aren't already buried as individuals in public military cemeteries anyway.
I don't see where Coumbus comes into it. He wasn't even a conquistador and there is no firm evidence that his four voyages unleashed any of the major epidemics that may have later killed up to 90% of the Amerindian population.
Cheers,
Sid.
I keep repeating that the Waffen-SS was accused of far more war crimes than the far larger German Army because it shows that better behaviour by German troops than that exhibited by the Waffen-SS was possible. Indeed, it was normal.
This in turn indicates that the Waffen-SS was a flawed institution even by German standards and that it was quite rightly viewed at Nuremberg as different from the rest of the Wehrmacht.
No. The key factor is not who accuses who. According to your logic, if two people of different persuasions witness exactly the same incident, the evidence of only one of them may be valid even if they report exactly the same events.
I don't know. Why isn't the scorching of 80,000 civilians in the Tokyo fire raids a more serious offence than killing 300 civilians at Oradour?
(By the way, I have never initiated a thread on Oradour and have seldom ever mentioned it, so I am afraid that that my presumed love affair with the place is pure fantasy).
I have no objection to public monuments to the Waffen-SS or Custer provided there is a public willing to accept them. It is not as if Waffen-SS men aren't already buried as individuals in public military cemeteries anyway.
I don't see where Coumbus comes into it. He wasn't even a conquistador and there is no firm evidence that his four voyages unleashed any of the major epidemics that may have later killed up to 90% of the Amerindian population.
Cheers,
Sid.
There are enough monuments to the Soviet Union- one of the most barbaric and inhumane political systems to ever exist- so why not memorials to the soldiers of the Waffen-SS? The key thing is that, if I'm not mistaken, the memorials in question are not to the SS, but to the soldiers, yes? It's the usual double-standard. 'Bomber' Harris is arguably one of the greatest mass-murderers in history if one is to apply the principles on which a great number of Germans are judged, and yet a statue of him was erected some years ago. Try doing that for Göring (not that anyone would want to given that he was such an idiot 
) And the question of atrocities is really a silly one- everyone always has, did, and continues to commit them. I'm not saying that excuses them- but it's the worst kind of denial to think that any one group or nation is free of guilt. The French Resistance, a terrorist organization by any definition, is glorified, but the Palistinian and Iraqi groups fighting what they see as occupation today are villified- and in the case of France, THEY declared war on Germany!
I agree completely that memorials to the soldiers of the Waffen-SS are as likely to inspire anything nasty as a memorial to General Lee is to inspire a return to owning slaves. People don't really need any reason to do nasty things- hell, they'll CREATE reasons.
It's REALLY ironic, but it seems that it has been the Russians, of all people, who have made the most reasonable move of recent years in allowing a German memorial to be erected at Volgograd (Stalingrad). Truly, it's only right given that there are memorials to the Soviets in Berlin I suppose- still I applaud them.
) And the question of atrocities is really a silly one- everyone always has, did, and continues to commit them. I'm not saying that excuses them- but it's the worst kind of denial to think that any one group or nation is free of guilt. The French Resistance, a terrorist organization by any definition, is glorified, but the Palistinian and Iraqi groups fighting what they see as occupation today are villified- and in the case of France, THEY declared war on Germany! I agree completely that memorials to the soldiers of the Waffen-SS are as likely to inspire anything nasty as a memorial to General Lee is to inspire a return to owning slaves. People don't really need any reason to do nasty things- hell, they'll CREATE reasons.
It's REALLY ironic, but it seems that it has been the Russians, of all people, who have made the most reasonable move of recent years in allowing a German memorial to be erected at Volgograd (Stalingrad). Truly, it's only right given that there are memorials to the Soviets in Berlin I suppose- still I applaud them.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate- "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'' William of Ockham
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate- "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'' William of Ockham
-
Lucas**Shep
- New Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:30 pm
Well I guess you are right, the attack on a radio station by Poland surely gave the Germans free licence to go and invade the majority of Europe, as well as Greece and Crete, in fact they were obligated, yeah right.........Did you forget that were the polish that first attacked a german radio station?
maybe i will sound manipulated by the nazi propaganda, but didn't the Poles try to make numerous land grabs in Germany after WW1? We can also see the invasion of Poland as some kind of revenge for the humiliations, same for France...but the story in this direction can stop with the attack on the USSR. But the Russians mobilised even before the German attack, we can call that threatening the German national security--which in some way washes the responsibillity of war off of German shoulders... Just a thought, nothing more!
best,
Nibelung
best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
The French resistance "a terrorist organisation by any definition"?! Same would go for those of my countrymen who fought the German occupation I suppose? This is the worst sort of relativism mixed with the worst kind of misleading historical comparison. The French resistance, as far as I know, did not put suicide bombers on German trams or set off bombs indiscriminately in downtown Paris. That's a pretty good distinction between resistance and terrorism in my book, for starters.The French Resistance, a terrorist organization by any definition, is glorified, but the Palistinian and Iraqi groups fighting what they see as occupation today are villified- and in the case of France, THEY declared war on Germany!
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
I know Im going to get a severe beating for this, but the fact remains that "resistance" is actually against the laws of war.
To fight an occupier, you have to begin the fighting before the occupier is in control of your contry. As soon as he is so (fex as the coalition was in Iraq in the spring of 2003), any resistance is not legal according to the laws of war. I dont think it goes as far as condemning it as war crimes, but fex killing an occupation soldier is then not a heroic deed in combat, but simple murder. Likewise, blowing up a factory is not "sabotage", but "vandalism", or "destruction of private property".
Plus, to fight you have to
1) Bear signs clearly signifying you as a combatant
2) Bear your weapons in the open
3) Be under the command of a superior who is responsible for your deeds.
As far as I know, few of the European WWII resistance movements outside the guerillas in the Balkans and the Soviet Union would fit these criteria.
Now, Im not saying this is right. Im merely stating what the laws of war say.
If memory suffices, the above comes from art 1 and 2 in the 1899 Hague land warfare conventions.
Henrik
To fight an occupier, you have to begin the fighting before the occupier is in control of your contry. As soon as he is so (fex as the coalition was in Iraq in the spring of 2003), any resistance is not legal according to the laws of war. I dont think it goes as far as condemning it as war crimes, but fex killing an occupation soldier is then not a heroic deed in combat, but simple murder. Likewise, blowing up a factory is not "sabotage", but "vandalism", or "destruction of private property".
Plus, to fight you have to
1) Bear signs clearly signifying you as a combatant
2) Bear your weapons in the open
3) Be under the command of a superior who is responsible for your deeds.
As far as I know, few of the European WWII resistance movements outside the guerillas in the Balkans and the Soviet Union would fit these criteria.
Now, Im not saying this is right. Im merely stating what the laws of war say.
If memory suffices, the above comes from art 1 and 2 in the 1899 Hague land warfare conventions.
Henrik
I agree with you, this was said sometime before...but why exclude the balkans and the russian partisans? They lost the war in Yugoslavia so any (even if organised) resistance was not legal, Yugoslavia capitulated, so the chetniks and partisans were no soldiers by the Hague convention...they were breaking the ocuppation laws.
A slight difference with russia, although they were partisans, the Army still existed, and they could be considered as a part of that Red Army, which often made plans for partisan attacks in the end of the war.
best,
Nibelung
A slight difference with russia, although they were partisans, the Army still existed, and they could be considered as a part of that Red Army, which often made plans for partisan attacks in the end of the war.
best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
What if the occupying power was engaged in an illegal war in the first place?
What if the legitimate government does not sue for peace and goes into exile to continue the struggle?
What if the legitimate government continues the struggle on part of its own soil?
What if the occupying power refuses to recognise or treat with the occupied country's government and attempts to abolish its state?
What if the existing army goes on to form the basis of continuing resistance?
What if the occupying power engages in armed repression of an occupied civilian population?
All these and more circumstances arose during WWII to obscure the issue.
Cheers,
Sid.
What if the occupying power was engaged in an illegal war in the first place?
What if the legitimate government does not sue for peace and goes into exile to continue the struggle?
What if the legitimate government continues the struggle on part of its own soil?
What if the occupying power refuses to recognise or treat with the occupied country's government and attempts to abolish its state?
What if the existing army goes on to form the basis of continuing resistance?
What if the occupying power engages in armed repression of an occupied civilian population?
All these and more circumstances arose during WWII to obscure the issue.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid
The questions you raise cannot be answered. The 'little war' has always
been full of contradictions. What patriot can refuse to answer the occupation of his land with a sword?
And the occupiers invariably become frustrated and strike back blindly.
The British were quite aware of this and acted accordingly, when sending the assassins to target Heydrich. I've long debated with myself the morality of that one - and have yet to reach a conclusion.
The folks at Lidice no doubt, have their own conclusion but when the enemy is at the gates one tends to light any sparks that might singe them a little.
The one good answer to the perplexing question would be to not invade the territory of others. Just as abstinance is the one sure cure for pregnancy!
cheers
Reb
The questions you raise cannot be answered. The 'little war' has always
been full of contradictions. What patriot can refuse to answer the occupation of his land with a sword?
And the occupiers invariably become frustrated and strike back blindly.
The British were quite aware of this and acted accordingly, when sending the assassins to target Heydrich. I've long debated with myself the morality of that one - and have yet to reach a conclusion.
The folks at Lidice no doubt, have their own conclusion but when the enemy is at the gates one tends to light any sparks that might singe them a little.
The one good answer to the perplexing question would be to not invade the territory of others. Just as abstinance is the one sure cure for pregnancy!
cheers
Reb
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Reb,
The Heydrich issue seems like a no-brainer to me. If responsible states stayed their hand every time they feared an over reaction by unprincipled opponents they would never ever confront them. Besides, the assasination was sanctioned by the Czechoslovak government-in-exile and carried out by Czechs.
Cheers,
Sid.
The Heydrich issue seems like a no-brainer to me. If responsible states stayed their hand every time they feared an over reaction by unprincipled opponents they would never ever confront them. Besides, the assasination was sanctioned by the Czechoslovak government-in-exile and carried out by Czechs.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid
My point is that Britain didn't 'fear an over-reaction,' they were counting on it. The goal was to stir up resistance by allowing the occupier to show himself at his worst. The Germans of course, rose to the occassion.
I think there was a bit of a calculated decision there as well, viz Nazi politics. Heydrich, villain that he was, tended to be dreadfully efficient and I'm guessing the Brits figured him as a successer to Himmler. Better to face Himmler than Heydrich eh?
Years ago there was an excellent movie released years ago that I thought did an accurate job of addressing this business, called "Operation Daybreak."
The scenes showing Heydrich's daily life were enough to curdle your blood.
No dictatorship for me thank you! Heydrich was enough to make one believe in vampires! Handsome, talented and utterly merciless.
Believe me - I make no moral judgment against the Brits on this - although I do tend to lean towards Liddel-Hart's judgment (and Gen Lee's) that partisan warfare is a pistol that shoots in both directions. (Lee made a rare exception in the case of Col. Mosby)
Since I would myself resist any invader I'm careful not to wade too deep into those waters. You and I have certainly seen both sides of that coin!
cheers
Reb
My point is that Britain didn't 'fear an over-reaction,' they were counting on it. The goal was to stir up resistance by allowing the occupier to show himself at his worst. The Germans of course, rose to the occassion.
I think there was a bit of a calculated decision there as well, viz Nazi politics. Heydrich, villain that he was, tended to be dreadfully efficient and I'm guessing the Brits figured him as a successer to Himmler. Better to face Himmler than Heydrich eh?
Years ago there was an excellent movie released years ago that I thought did an accurate job of addressing this business, called "Operation Daybreak."
The scenes showing Heydrich's daily life were enough to curdle your blood.
No dictatorship for me thank you! Heydrich was enough to make one believe in vampires! Handsome, talented and utterly merciless.
Believe me - I make no moral judgment against the Brits on this - although I do tend to lean towards Liddel-Hart's judgment (and Gen Lee's) that partisan warfare is a pistol that shoots in both directions. (Lee made a rare exception in the case of Col. Mosby)
Since I would myself resist any invader I'm careful not to wade too deep into those waters. You and I have certainly seen both sides of that coin!
cheers
Reb