Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Differential tratement of war criminals by different Allies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Differential tratement of war criminals by different Allies

    I just finished watching a documentary called the 'Great Escape, the Reckoning' about the post war hunt for the Germans who had murdered the Allied prisoners involved in the great escape. After the war the British hunted down and executed 13 of those who had murdered the escapees. A further 11 Nazis killed themselves while awaiting execution. Further I have read that the British hunted down and executed a number of Germans who murdered shot down fliers and some of the SS who murdered British soldiers who surrendered after Dunkirk. Admittedly not every German who murdered a British citizen was caught and executed but a serious effort was made after the war to do so.

    Yet the Americans let off the SS who murdered their PoWs at Malady and the French let off those who carried out the murders at Oradour sur Glane.
    Why did the Americans and French not to seek justice against those who had murdered their citizens?
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

  • #2
    Somewhere in the answer to that question lies the term realpolitk and their probable recogniton that they weren't going to get them all. hence they focused on the big ones at Nuremburg.

    Consequently their effort was in rehab and occupation as a counter to the Commies and using Nazi scientists to enhance their strat caps.

    I don't necessarily support that view in it's entirety but it's realpolitik ntl.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think you are exagerating:the US executed a lor of German war criminals,the Malmedy case is something special:the US investigators (at least some ) were 'to zealous' and their methods were 'critisized ';the result was that the condemnations to death were replaced by imprisonment.
      About Oradour nly some low ranks appeared for justice (the chief culprits were dead or had disappeared),but the BIG probleme was,that a lot of the accused were 'malgré nous'=men of the Alsace,that was annexed by Germany,and who were enrolled by force in the Wehrmacht;this was a very sensible thing in France,and the whole Alsace demanded their liberation .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ljadw View Post
        I think you are exagerating:the US executed a lor of German war criminals,the Malmedy case is something special:the US investigators (at least some ) were 'to zealous' and their methods were 'critisized ';the result was that the condemnations to death were replaced by imprisonment.
        About Oradour nly some low ranks appeared for justice (the chief culprits were dead or had disappeared),but the BIG probleme was,that a lot of the accused were 'malgré nous'=men of the Alsace,that was annexed by Germany,and who were enrolled by force in the Wehrmacht;this was a very sensible thing in France,and the whole Alsace demanded their liberation .
        Hi,

        For clarification I am not talking about the execution of war criminals per see but of war criminals who murdered the respective Allied countries citizens. I don't know of any case where the Americans executed any Nazis who had murdered US soldiers.

        And the British executed even the low ranks who were involced in the murder of British and Commonwealth soldiers. Plus at Oradour the killers were SS volunteers rather than Wehrmacht.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • #5
          Waffen SS veterans vehemently deny the Malmedy (correct spelling) massacre. In fact, one such vet is interviewed denying it on the TV documentary Fields of Armor: Normandy.

          It's interesting to note the treatment of prisoners, especially of late. Not that I'm in any way sticking up for al-Qaida or the terrorist acts on 9/11, but the application of terrorist status and the exemption of the Geneva convention is reminiscient of the German reaction to British commandos (some of which were directed toward German civilian targets) and Russo-Ukrainian-Jewish partisans. By contrast, watching the old British TV show Colditz, one cannot be but struck by the very proper living conditions of regular British POWs during the earlier part of the war, which was more or less accurate.

          There are actually a number of recorded instances of US and Canadian troops shooting surrendering soldiers, but this kind of thing happens in all armies. It's a fact of war. Even the latest episode of the PBS Frontline documentary on returning US soldiers from Iraq has US veterans admitting to intentionally shooting surrendering combatants or even male civilian bystanders. Horrible, but this is a fact of all wars.

          Speaking of POW treatment during WW2, the US Army in Europe had a SOP where every German taken into custody- every one- was given a swift, roundhouse boot to the ass. In the TV documentary World at War, there's actual footage of this taking place. (It's funny to watch.)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
            Waffen SS veterans vehemently deny the Malmedy (correct spelling) massacre. In fact, one such vet is interviewed denying it on the TV documentary Fields of Armor: Normandy.

            It's interesting to note the treatment of prisoners, especially of late. Not that I'm in any way sticking up for al-Qaida or the terrorist acts on 9/11, but the application of terrorist status and the exemption of the Geneva convention is reminiscient of the German reaction to British commandos (some of which were directed toward German civilian targets) and Russo-Ukrainian-Jewish partisans. By contrast, watching the old British TV show Colditz, one cannot be but struck by the very proper living conditions of regular British POWs during the earlier part of the war, which was more or less accurate.

            There are actually a number of recorded instances of US and Canadian troops shooting surrendering soldiers, but this kind of thing happens in all armies. It's a fact of war. Even the latest episode of the PBS Frontline documentary on returning US soldiers from Iraq has US veterans admitting to intentionally shooting surrendering combatants or even male civilian bystanders. Horrible, but this is a fact of all wars.

            Speaking of POW treatment during WW2, the US Army in Europe had a SOP where every German taken into custody- every one- was given a swift, roundhouse boot to the ass. In the TV documentary World at War, there's actual footage of this taking place. (It's funny to watch.)
            Cool, now please respond to peoples posts regarding your attempt to stir a pot thread you have since ignored after you created it:

            http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=93445
            Кто там?
            Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
            Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
              Waffen SS veterans vehemently deny the Malmedy (correct spelling) massacre. In fact, one such vet is interviewed denying it on the TV documentary Fields of Armor: Normandy.

              It's interesting to note the treatment of prisoners, especially of late. Not that I'm in any way sticking up for al-Qaida or the terrorist acts on 9/11, but the application of terrorist status and the exemption of the Geneva convention is reminiscent of the German reaction to British commandos (some of which were directed toward German civilian targets) and Russo-Ukrainian-Jewish partisans. By contrast, watching the old British TV show Colditz, one cannot be but struck by the very proper living conditions of regular British POWs during the earlier part of the war, which was more or less accurate.

              There are actually a number of recorded instances of US and Canadian troops shooting surrendering soldiers, but this kind of thing happens in all armies. It's a fact of war. Even the latest episode of the PBS Frontline documentary on returning US soldiers from Iraq has US veterans admitting to intentionally shooting surrendering combatants or even male civilian bystanders. Horrible, but this is a fact of all wars.

              Speaking of POW treatment during WW2, the US Army in Europe had a SOP where every German taken into custody- every one- was given a swift, roundhouse boot to the ass. In the TV documentary World at War, there's actual footage of this taking place. (It's funny to watch.)
              1. They would deny it wouldn't they, they were SS. There are enough reliable witnesses however to confirm that the massacre did happen.

              2. The Al Queda on 9/11 were not in uniform nor were they members of any countries army. For that matter at the time no Islamic country, not even Iran, was at war with America in 2001. Thus the 9/11 murderers are not protected by the Geneva convention and were simply criminals. Whereas those killed under the commando order were usually in uniform, were members of the Allied armies and were at war with Germany at the time. Thus they were protected by the Geneva convention and they killing was legally murder.

              3. The escapees involved in the Great escape and those murdered under the Commando order were not killed on capture. They were all murdered some time afterwards.

              4. A boot to the ass is not comparable to a bullet in the back of the head.
              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

              Comment


              • #8
                1. Summary dismissal of denial is an unsystematic approach to history. Not saying the massacre didn't take place, but irregularities were found to have taken place during the trials.

                2. Russo-Ukrainian-Jewish partisans fit into this category, as did Filipino insurgents. Same rules apply?

                3. There are recorded instances of Taliban and Al-Qaida killed after capture. Same rules apply? (A sincere question.) It was a heated time in US history, I understand.

                4. Yes, but German troops did not indulge in such. (It would have been considered a breakdown of discipline.)

                Comment


                • #9
                  4. Yes, but German troops did not indulge in such. (It would have been considered a breakdown of discipline.)
                  You seem to have a thoroughly rosy view of the German army. There are numerous reports of Wehrmacht soldiers' humiliation and brutalisation of Soviet POWs immediately upon capture and on the march to prison camps. This is not to speak of what happened to these prisoners upon getting there.
                  www.histours.ru

                  Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You misunderstand me, ShAA. I'm not sticking up for the German Heer or Waffen SS. Merely demonstrating the horrors and realities of war.

                    All wars contain atrocities. And nearly every side has, to a greater or lesser extent, its own share.

                    It's a very ugly affair, to be avoided if at all humanly possible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
                      You misunderstand me, ShAA. I'm not sticking up for the German Heer or Waffen SS. Merely demonstrating the horrors and realities of war.

                      All wars contain atrocities. And nearly every side has, to a greater or lesser extent, its own share.

                      It's a very ugly affair, to be avoided if at all humanly possible.
                      You just said the Germans didn't take part in humiliating prisoners, there is plenty of evidence that they did indeed, especially on the Eastern Front. Then when called on your statement all of the sudden people aren't understanding you?

                      You can't be serious.

                      Now please reply to the thread you made about the Greeks being homosexual pedophiles and the Persians be fine upstanding honorable people that did no wrong you seemed to forget you made.
                      Кто там?
                      Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
                      Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
                        You misunderstand me, ShAA. I'm not sticking up for the German Heer or Waffen SS. Merely demonstrating the horrors and realities of war.

                        All wars contain atrocities. And nearly every side has, to a greater or lesser extent, its own share.

                        It's a very ugly affair, to be avoided if at all humanly possible.
                        You're getting weird here. You have just flatly ruled out the possibility of German troops kicking anyone in the ass.

                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        4. A boot to the ass is not comparable to a bullet in the back of the head.
                        Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
                        4.Yes, but German troops did not indulge in such. (It would have been considered a breakdown of discipline.)
                        I answered you it was not true. Now you're writing me some truistic blablabla about "everyone's not perfect".

                        So what evidence do you have of the German soldiers refraining from even such minor abuse as ass kicking?
                        www.histours.ru

                        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Such was not SOP (standard operating procedure) for the German Heer during WW2. That's all.

                          If it's weird to abhor war, consider me a weirdo.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Considering all the foolishness happening in Gitmo and the way the ACLU goes into overdrive for terrorists, it's easy to see why US troops might still be tempted to kill any AQ or Tailban they find.
                            Captured terrorists can't be effectively questioned and might even get multi-million dollar trills.
                            It's not as if any US troops have survived capture by those enemies, the tiny few who got caught, anyhow.



                            Which brings me back to the original question.
                            I would have though that France would be exceptionally vigorous chasing down Nazi war criminals. I have heard that they killed about 100,000 of thier own people, before and after the war, for collaboration with the Nazis.
                            So where is the truth on that one?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by علامت پیروز View Post
                              Such was not SOP (standard operating procedure) for the German Heer during WW2. That's all.

                              If it's weird to abhor war, consider me a weirdo.
                              Oh yes, following rules and regulations is all war is about.

                              And indeed the army which has ass kicking as a SOP is infinitely worse than the one which doesn't have it but only mutilates people and burns them alive in short and unpunished breaches of discipline.
                              www.histours.ru

                              Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X