PDA

View Full Version : "Vengeance at Dachau" (U.S. Soldiers nearly massacred concentration camp guards)



Nickdfresh
07-18-2006, 03:31 PM
This is from an excellent series The Boston Globe ran on WWII in 2001 after the declassification of numerous CIA files on WWII. The dark side of the Allied victory...

By Thomas Farragher / The Boston Globe (http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index5.shtml) Staff / July 2, 2001

It was a chilling spring dawn a lifetime ago, the day before Hitler's suicide, a week before Americans danced in the streets to sweetly toast triumph in Europe.

But in that wan Sunday sunlight as the Allies raced for Munich and history, Felix Sparks, William Walsh, and John Lee were still combat soldiers trying to stay alive at the end of a long and bloody war. Still on fierce duty. Still hunting desperate Germans pushed to the brink of defeat and disgrace.

As the GIs were detoured into an intersection of righteousness and revenge at the Bavarian town of Dachau, they had no way of knowing they were marching toward one of the war's most egregious but barely explored cases of prisoner mistreatment by US forces in Europe.

They could not have fathomed that they would soon find themselves at the center of a US Army investigation into a massacre of German soldiers that General Dwight D. Eisenhower worried might erode America's moral authority to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremburg.

At first, they simply saw a train.

''The first goddamn thing we saw were 20 or 30 boxcars,'' said Walsh, a Newton native, his Boston accent chowder-thick. ''Some open at the top, some closed in. And here are all these goddamn people in it. And you kind of figure, well, maybe they're sleeping. Maybe they're hungry.

''You soon realize: They're all dead! What the hell is this? We had never seen anything like that before.''

Few had. The horrific lexicon is familiar now. Concentration camps. The Final Solution. Six million Jews murdered by a megalomaniac on a satanic mission. The Holocaust.

But the war-worn members of the 45th Infantry Division, who received radio orders to take Dachau on April 29, 1945, knew little or nothing of concentration camps. They knew only what they could see, hear, and smell.

The sight of 2,310 decomposing corpses on that train, an edgy silence interrupted by episodic gunfire, and the stench of death that hung in the air that day ignited a deadly fuse. It would quickly explode with fury and linger like gunsmoke for more than a half century.

The word went out at Dachau: We'll take no prisoners here. A machine gun was set up. Scores of captured acolytes of Hitler's Third Reich were herded into a dusty coal yard and lined up against a stucco wall.

Then American gunfire crackled. Germans fell. Officially, at least 17 were killed. Eleven other Germans who had surrendered were shot in two other locations at Dachau that day, according to records and interviews.

As an eye blink's worth of springtime light slipped onto black-and-white film from behind a camera's shutter, the dark image that slowly took focus endures today. It is frightful evidence that the evil the Nazis manufactured at their death camps was strong enough to badly cloud the judgment of some Americans who tore down Hitler's barbaric cages.

In an almost forgotten footnote of history, American investigators concluded that some of the GIs who rounded up elite SS troops during Dachau's liberation were not heroes, but murderers - the ugly underbelly of the Greatest Generation.

''It certainly has to be among the most egregious imaginable examples of misbehavior by the US military in the Second World War,'' said Douglas Brinkley, director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans. ''It's a low point in an otherwise gallant effort to beat facism. It's an example of what every commading officer does not want to see happen. ... I think the general sentiment about this is: 'Oh, come on. Look how horrible the Nazis were. I would have done the same thing.' We give a bit of empathy to the soldiers who killed the Nazis. And yet, they became very much like the Nazis they were gunning down.''

That sharp assessment is shared by some of the soldiers who witnessed the shootings. When forces have surrendered, their hands in the air, you don't fire, they say. If you do, you cross the line that separates soldier from criminal.

''That is not the American way of fighting,'' Second Lieutenant Daniel F. Drain, who was ordered to set up his machine gun on that unseasonably cool April day, testified at the Army's official inquiry 56 years ago.

But men like General George S. Patton did not believe that. Patton dismissed the murder charges with a flourish, tossing all of the investigative files into a trash can and telling the accused men to go home and get on with their lives, according to two officers interviewed by The Boston Globe.

One copy of the classified investigation survived, however, sandwiched into a gray cardboard box at the National Archives outside Washington, D.C., mislabeled, undisturbed for nearly 50 years, and reviewed by the Globe as the basis for this article.

The investigation was declassified in 1987, before the 3 million pages that have become available in the last few years under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, some of which have formed the basis for other articles in this series. Yet according to National Archives historian Greg Bradsher, some of the best material was declassified long ago, but never examined by anybody. ''If something has sat here for 50 years and nobody's used it, it's basically news,'' he said.

The report on the Dachau investigation tells a story that has gone virtually unreported in major American newspapers and magazines, meriting just several sentences, for example, in a 1995 US News & World Report account of the 50th anniversary of Dachau's liberation.

Inside those archived files, however, is gripping testimony of citizen-soldiers -- some of them just teenagers at the time -- who never forgot the moment they confronted the devilish divide between good and evil. Walk a mile in my boots, those men later would implore, before passing judgment on what happened that day at Dachau.

The Rest Here. (http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index5_3.shtml)

...

Thomas Farragher's email address is farragher@globe.com.

Chevan
08-01-2008, 12:29 PM
Regarding the theme. Do you know where is next photo from ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/31542-2/SoldiersExecuted
The post under says that this is mass execution the personall one of concentration camp, liberated by Americans.
On far rear front of picture there a tens of corpses are observed.
The american soldiers probably use a mashine-gun.

Nickdfresh
08-01-2008, 12:48 PM
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3671

Reopened for discussion...

Nickdfresh
08-01-2008, 12:50 PM
Regarding the theme. Do you know where is next photo from ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/31542-2/SoldiersExecuted
The post under says that this is mass execution the personall one of concentration camp, liberated by Americans.
On far rear front of picture there a tens of corpses are observed.
The american soldiers probably use a mashine-gun.

I've already posted this. The Boston Globe newspaper did a story on this years ago. The execution was not sanctioned by the command in anyway as a Lieutenant, outraged at the stench of bodies in the concentration camp, gathered the SS guards and ordered men to --yes-- amass automatic weapons such as BARs and M1919s. Some did willfully or reluctantly, other's refused and ran to get their colonel, who promptly halted the massacre.


Seventeen Waffen SS men were killed, the rest hit-the-deck so to speak when the shooting started...

Nickdfresh
08-01-2008, 01:09 PM
From pages 6 and 7 from the link


...''I was there when they took [the Germans] behind the wall, but didn't have the nerve to see what was going on,'' Competielle testified at the inquiry. ''There was so much excitement that everybody was shouting so you could not tell who the order [to separate the SS men] came from. And all I do know was they separated the SS troops from other prisoners.''

But Competielle knew the Americans' intentions. ''The word just got around that they were going to shoot all the SS'ers,'' he said. ''I figured that is why they were taking them behind the wall. Then I heard somebody ask: Where is a machine gun?''

At that moment Sparks, the battalion commander, said he considered his German captives under guard and secure.

''There was nothing really going on at that time,'' he said in the recent interview. ''It looked like everything was under control, and then I heard some firing off in the vicinity of the concentration camp.''

The gunfire in the near distance, last remnants of resistance from the rapidly retreating and uncaptured German guards, distracted Sparks. He left the coal yard to investigate.

But Sparks's men remained. Lee stood guard with his rifle.

Lieutenant Drain, as ordered, set up his machine gun. Then, he said, he turned and walked away.

Corporal Martin J. Sedler stood next to the gun, and Private William C. Curtin took aim at the Germans, according to testimony at the inquiry.

Lieutenant Walsh was in command.

''He said he was going to shoot the machine gun, and lined up [rifle] men, and called for a few Tommy gunners,'' Curtin testified of Walsh.

Curtin said as he fed the belt into the machine gun, the SS prisoners, by now apparently certain of their captors' intentions, began to move toward the Americans.

''[Walsh] cut loose with his pistol and said, 'Let them have it,''' said Curtin, telling investigators that he fired 30 to 50 rounds in three long bursts.

Lee said he fired only once before his gun jammed. ''Somebody hollered, 'Fire!' and about three rifles and a machine gun started shooting, and my BAR [Browning automatic rifle],'' Lee testified.

Bushyhead, Walsh's executive officer, testified that he believed that he, too, had joined in the firing.

''It was probably no more than 10 seconds, but it seemed like much longer,'' Karl O. Mann, Sparks's interpreter, who witnessed the shooting, said in an interview. ''They fired from left to right and right to left and so on. It wasn't very long, but it was long enough to inflict damage.''

Sparks, alarmed by the sudden machine-gun burst, raced back to the coal yard, firing his pistol in the air and furiously signaling with his left hand for his men to stop shooting.

''Some young private was on the machine gun, and I kicked him and knocked him forward,'' Sparks recalled in the interview. ''I then dragged him by the collar -- he was a small man -- and he was crying. He said, 'They were trying to get away.' They weren't trying to get away at all. And then everything was very quiet.''

The Germans lay crumpled at the base of the stucco wall. At first, it seemed scores had been killed in the gunfire. When the Americans ordered survivors to stand, however, they said many did.

'When I went over there, why, there were, I should say, about 75 or so lying on the ground,'' Private Frank Eggert testified later. ''It looked like they were pretty badly wounded.

''Then somebody gave the order for them to get up, and most of them got up. I don't see how they got away with it, with so many shots fired.''

The inspector general report found that 17 were killed at the wall. And, like the visceral reaction evoked by the death train just outside Dachau, the shootings frightened and disgusted some GIs.

''[Drain] said it was one of the worst things he had ever seen since being in the Army,'' Second Lieutenant Donald E. Strickland testified. ''He was sorry that it was his machine gun that had to be used for it.''

Corporal Henry Mills, then a 22-year-old member of the battalion's intelligence and reconnaissance platoon, remembered his harrowing arrival at Dachau in Strong's 1990 documentary.

''I remember saying, 'Geez, we came over here to stop this bullshit, and now here we got somebody doing the same thing.' Once they were prisoners, they were prisoners. They were unarmed, and they were prisoners. You can't shoot them. You can't do that. That's an atrocity, I'm sure.''

Mills said as he walked around the camp that day, he was overwhelmed by a yearning not often associated with toughened veterans.

''I remember it real well, I said: 'I've been here too long. I've to go home now.' And it was a funny thing. I said, 'I want to see my mom.' ... I hadn't seen her for three years. That's what came in to my mind: I wanted to see my mom.''

--By Mark Fritz of The Boston Globe--

Chevan
08-01-2008, 01:13 PM
I've already posted this. The Boston Globe newspaper did a story on this years ago. The execution was not sanctioned by the command in anyway as a Lieutenant, outraged at the stench of bodies in the concentration camp, gathered the SS guards and ordered men to --yes-- amass automatic weapons such as BARs and M1919s. Some did willfully or reluctantly, other's refused and ran to get their colonel, who promptly halted the massacre.


Seventeen Waffen SS men were killed, the rest hit-the-deck so to speak when the shooting started...
What the SS-guard did in Concentration camp?
As i know the personal of concentration camp was FAR not SS.

''That is not the American way of fighting,'' Second Lieutenant Daniel F. Drain, who was ordered to set up his machine gun on that unseasonably cool April day, testified at the Army's official inquiry 56 years ago.
Accidentally , was a Lieutenant Daniel F. Drain a jew?
What was a reason of his "initiative"?

Nickdfresh
08-01-2008, 01:23 PM
What the SS-guard did in Concentration camp?
As i know the personal of concentration camp was FAR not SS.


I don't know although there were some SS personal at various camps.

And are the FAR the polizei? As I have heard German regular police were also used as guards and administrators, but largely escaped scrutiny after the War...

The article stated that the SS were defending the camp, and that the US 45th Infantry Division members took care to separate the SS from Heer...


Accidentally , was a Lieutenant Daniel F. Drain a jew?
What was a reason of his "initiative"?

I have no idea. But most of the men there were not. And Drain actually set up the machine-guns as ordered but walked away refusing to take part...

Chevan
08-01-2008, 01:41 PM
I don't know although there were some SS personal at various camps.

And are the FAR the polizei? As I have heard German regular police were also used as guards and administrators, but largely escaped scrutiny after the War...

The article stated that the SS were defending the camp, and that the US 45th Infantry Division members took care to separate the SS from Heer...


What was sense to defend a ...concentration camp Nick?
As i know any camp in the East where Red Army arrived ,Germans simply have run away.
Even the Aushviz has been liberated quite accidentally - nobody was here except few handred of suffered peoples.No one fought and shoted here.
All the personal simply escaped out of camp. They even did not attemp to "liqudate" the rest or unlucky prisoners ( as Hitler ordered).

namvet
08-01-2008, 03:16 PM
we know when Eisenhower saw these camps he refused to accept Germany's surrender. chosing to send some one else. how could we possibly know how these soldiers felt when they liberated these camps. and I can understand why the took it out on the German.
>
>
several years ago I put up a post on a board. should the allies have bombed these camps???? the prisoners said yes. but can you give the command to do it???? or would you refuse the order to do it.?? that post drew over 70 replies.

ptimms
08-01-2008, 03:18 PM
Certainly the accounts I have seen suggest they were Waffen SS men sent to guard the place as most of the Camp Guards had legged it. However if a German unit had come across the same in Russia I suggest every last one would have died and probably the inhabitants of any local towns too.

Nickdfresh
08-01-2008, 05:12 PM
What was sense to defend a ...concentration camp Nick?
As i know any camp in the East where Red Army arrived ,Germans simply have run away.
Even the Aushviz has been liberated quite accidentally - nobody was here except few handred of suffered peoples.No one fought and shoted here.
All the personal simply escaped out of camp. They even did not attemp to "liqudate" the rest or unlucky prisoners ( as Hitler ordered).

Um, because it was part of German territory?


And what is your point? How would the Germans have been captured otherwise?

imi
08-02-2008, 10:49 AM
I understand the anger,but that is not the right way I think.
Litigation,and penalty

namvet
08-02-2008, 10:56 AM
I understand the anger,but that is not the right way I think.
Litigation,and penalty

that's done on the battlefield. at the point of a gun.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2008, 11:18 AM
This is from an excellent series The Boston Globe ran on WWII in 2001 after the declassification of numerous CIA files on WWII. The dark side of the Allied victory...

By Thomas Farragher / The Boston Globe (http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index5.shtml) Staff / July 2, 2001

But men like General George S. Patton did not believe that. Patton dismissed the murder charges with a flourish, tossing all of the investigative files into a trash can and telling the accused men to go home and get on with their lives, according to two officers interviewed by The Boston Globe.


Patton is overrated in some respects, but here I respect (as distinct from admire) his decision.

Killing those bastards plugged an important hole in the human gene pool.

I'm sick to bloody death of vile bastards whingeing when their precious rights to personal liberty and comfortable life are infringed after happily trampling on the rights and lives of others to whom they never gave any rights. For example,


Karadzic sought to elaborate on "numerous irregularities" in his capture. Before capitulating to Judge Alphons Orie's insistence that this was not the time or place to raise these issues, Karadzic said he had been "kidnapped" prior to the official date given for his arrest: July 21.

"I was arrested irregularly. For three days I was kidnapped ... I was kept in a place ... my rights were not (read out to) me, I had no right to a telephone." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jcZ24XTpsKaVQgYcwt9oTmkSba_g

Poor little Radovan, not read his rights (like he wouldn't know them to the letter!) and denied a telephone. Two things none of the poor bastards massacred under his regime ever got when marched into a forest and made to dig their own graves before getting a bullet or five.

Then we have these martyrs supposedly welcoming death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b_nGkAupI&feature=relatedand , presumably to get their however many virgins in heaven, yet surprisingly determined to exploit every possible legal avenue to delay reaching that orgasmic celestial destination. So what was the response of these bastards to their last court appeal being denied? Oh, please, don't let us suffer a moment of the pain we inflicted on hundreds of others and in which we glory.


LAWYERS for three Islamic militants on death row over the 2002 Bali bombings today flagged a new legal challenge to their impending executions.

Defence lawyer Mahendradatta foreshadowed a Constitutional Court challenge next week, arguing the convicted terrorists could suffer unnecessary pain if they do not die immediately when the lethal punishment is carried out.

It is seen as another attempt to delay the executions of Amrozi, his brother Mukhlas and Imam Samudra, who could be executed at any time over the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people including 88 Australians.

The three will face an Indonesian firing squad, and would be shot a second time if the first bullet does not kill them instantly, Mahendradatta said.

"We are not closing our eyes to the possibility of Amrozi being executed,'' he told reporters.

''(But) there's time when the convicted will feel pain until he is shot a second time.

"Amrozi was sentenced to death, not to be tortured. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24097773-2,00.html

Really, who gives a stuff if some people who are wasting oxygen while depriving others of it are disposed of in the heat of the moment?

Not me.

As far as I'm concerned, if Patton did as reported, good on him.

Rising Sun*
08-02-2008, 11:25 AM
Just for a separate consideration, assuming the things at the same range as the people with their hands up are bodies, how do we know they're not people killed by the Nazis before the Americans arrived?

The positions of the American troops are not consistent with a firing party which killed all the bodies supposedly at the wall.

And, one asks, if the Yanks had been mowing people down, why would there be a few Nazis or Germans holding their hands up at the end of it, before the Yanks were in firing positions?

I'm not disputing the text posted about the event, but the photo doesn't prove anything.

Save the picture and examine it with a photo editor. There isn't any indication of uniformed victims in the pile against the wall. Or did the Americans massacre civilians before making uniformed men surrender, which the man in the middle and at far right aren't doing?

Chevan
08-02-2008, 01:26 PM
Um, because it was part of German territory?

Nick , germans fought with fierce for any territory since Ukrainian Kiev till the french Normandy, as for "German territory" if they got an order.
In the Dachau there were any battle for camp tht had no any sense to keep for germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp#Liberation
As we moved down along the west side of the concentration camp and approached the southwest corner, three people approached down the road under a flag of truce. We met these people about 75 yards north of the southwest entrance to the camp. These three people were a Swiss Red Cross representative and two SS troopers who said they were the camp commander and assistant camp commander and that they had come into the camp on the night of the 28th to take over from the regular camp personnel for the purpose of turning the camp over to the advancing Americans. The Swiss Red Cross representative acted as interpreter and stated that there were about 100 SS guards in the camp who had their arms stacked except for the people in the tower. He said he had given instructions that there would be no shots fired and it would take about 50 men to relieve the guards, as there were 42,000 half-crazed prisoners of war in the camp, many of them typhus infected. He asked if I were an officer of the American army, to which I replied, "Yes, I am Assistant Division Commander of the 42d Division and will accept the surrender of the camp in the name of the Rainbow Division for the American army

The SS-commander simply has escaped day befor lioberation.

On 28 April 1945, the day before the surrender, Camp Commandant Martin Gottfried Weiss had left the Dachau camp, along with most of the regular guards and administrators in the camp. On that same day, Victor Maurer, a representative of the Red Cross, had tried to persuade Untersturmführer Johannes Otto, the adjutant of Commandant Weiss, not to abandon the camp, but to leave guards posted to keep the prisoners inside until the Americans arrived. Maurer feared that the prisoners would escape en masse and spread the active typhus fever epidemic. Lt. Otto declined to remain and fled.

So in fact the SS guard did a right job waiting for the Americans and holding the round up the prisoners, prevented typhus infected POWs to be self-dismissed to threat the city.



And what is your point? How would the Germans have been captured otherwise?


Well considering the facts above , my point that the Americans shoted the WRONG GUYS.
This is clear for me - all the War criminals including the commander of camp have escaped from camp till the arriving the americans.
The people who has stayed here - about 100 SS soldier( who even did not guess they can be blamed in war crimes in camp and, hence , be executed), simply did ther job according the Red Cross demands.
The SS mans easy might escaped just like the guards of Aushwiz in jenuary 1945. But they have not.They were a good soldiers.They probably hoped for better destiny.
I'm afraid this is pure War crime - to execute the pows for no reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Buechner_account

However according to the book Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger : An Eyewitness Account written by Howard Buechner, in 1986,[6] 520 German soldiers were executed, including 346 killed on the orders of 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, a Native American officer, in an alleged mass execution in the coalyard several hours after the first hospital shooting. Buechner did not witness the alleged incident himself, however, and there was no mention of a second shooting in the official investigation report.

.................................................. .............................
David L. Israel disputed this account in his book The Day the Thunderbird Cried
Buechner's inaccuracies and arbitrary use of figures in citing the untrue story about the total liquidation of all SS troops found in Dachau was eagerly accepted by Revisionist organizations and exploited to meet their own distorted stories of Dachau.



520 executed from above 1000 of all pows - this is not well.
Intersting who was a "native american" Jack Bushyhead?
BTW is David Israel seriously think that we shall not investigate the Bolshevick crimes in Russia just because the Revisionist "exploited to meet their own distorted stories" of jews ruling in 1917-1931:)?

Chevan
08-02-2008, 01:54 PM
I'm not disputing the text posted about the event, but the photo doesn't prove anything.

Save the picture and examine it with a photo editor. There isn't any indication of uniformed victims in the pile against the wall. Or did the Americans massacre civilians before making uniformed men surrender, which the man in the middle and at far right aren't doing?

Absolutly true mate.
The photo proves nothing if one don't know the background of events.
But we have a documental confirmations of the execution from Americans sources.
Beside as it was established - there were no direct order to execute the POWs.
So as we can guess - it was somebody's personal vengeance.
Whom - that is a question.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#United_States_Army_investigation
The investigation resulted in the U.S. Military considering the court-martialling of those involved including the Battalion commander Lt. Col. Felix Sparks, while Col. Howard Buechner cited in the report for dereliction of duty for not giving the wounded SS men in the coal yard medical aid,[5] but as General Patton, the recently appointed military governor of Bavaria, chose to dismiss the charges, the witnesses to the massacre were never cross examined in court and no one was found guilty of the massacre

So shortly saying , nobody was gult.
Honestly , it was also a tupical scenario for Eastern front during liberation of Germany by Red Army.
However the soldiers of Red Army, many of whom lost their relatives and friends after cruel nazy occupation, have deply personal motivation for vengeance.
But what sort of motivation had the leutenant William P. Walsh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Killings_by_the_American_soldiers
It seems fro me this is quite dirty story is appearing.
Someone in US army, pobably jewish origin( not fact, but though) , according personal will , tryed to commit OWN vengenace over, directly saying, the innocent Guard , that saved the camp from to be self-dismissed of thousand sick peoples, according the Red Cross demand.

Nickdfresh
08-02-2008, 06:06 PM
Nick , germans fought with fierce for any territory since Ukrainian Kiev till the french Normandy, as for "German territory" if they got an order.
In the Dachau there were any battle for camp tht had no any sense to keep for germans.

The SS-commander simply has escaped day befor lioberation.

So in fact the SS guard did a right job waiting for the Americans and holding the round up the prisoners, prevented typhus infected POWs to be self-dismissed to threat the city.



Well considering the facts above , my point that the Americans shoted the WRONG GUYS.
This is clear for me - all the War criminals including the commander of camp have escaped from camp till the arriving the americans.
The people who has stayed here - about 100 SS soldier( who even did not guess they can be blamed in war crimes in camp and, hence , be executed), simply did ther job according the Red Cross demands.
The SS mans easy might escaped just like the guards of Aushwiz in jenuary 1945. But they have not.They were a good soldiers.They probably hoped for better destiny.
I'm afraid this is pure War crime - to execute the pows for no reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Buechner_account

All logical points. However, you're again assuming that somehow through the majesty of providence that the average American soldier was somehow aware of this situation. Again, it's out of the context of the actual moments in which US soldiers found trains loaded with bodies and merely assumed. Secondly, the "facts" that the SS guards were somehow all different from the actual administrators of the camp is extremely dubious. In fact, most of those 100 men were probably camp guards, but obviously their superiors escaped. The exchange of personnel is utter crap, completely counter-intuitive and unrealistic, and probably was more a case of the Red Cross striking a deal in which he would cover for the guards if they did not massacre those sorry souls left (as the Germans did at other camps)...

Who would come and relieve concentration camp guards if they weren't there already?

The POWs were not executed for no reason. They were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. While I agree that their is no real justification, legal or otherwise, to the shootings. I certainly can understand them...


520 executed from above 1000 of all pows - this is not well.
Intersting who was a "native american" Jack Bushyhead?
BTW is David Israel seriously think that we shall not investigate the Bolshevick crimes in Russia just because the Revisionist "exploited to meet their own distorted stories" of jews ruling in 1917-1931:)?

Utter crap, just fantasy statistics. What is his source for this? The previous source you posted said that their were only 100 camp guards present, now 500 were killed?

And why would only Jews be outraged over the mass killings of their people? Were they supposed to cheer if they were not Jewish?

This incident has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Bolshevik" crimes...Many of the biggest Bolshevik killers and War Criminals, like Stalin, weren't even Jewish nor Russian. ..

Chevan
08-02-2008, 06:29 PM
Utter crap, just fantasy statistics. What is his source for this?

You will laugh- Wiki.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Sparks_account
It was the forgoing incident which has given rise to wild claims in various publications that most or all of the German prisoners captured at Dachau were executed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The total number of German guards killed at Dachau during that day most certainly not exceed fifty, with thirty probably being a more accurate figure. The regimental records for that date indicate that over a thousand German prisoners were brought to the regimental collecting point. Since my task force was leading the regimental attack, almost all the prisoners were taken by the task force, including several hundred from Dachau.

by Felix L. Sparks



The previous source you posted said that their were only 100 camp guards present, now 500 were killed?

The 520 have executed from about 1000 all of GErmans pows that day.
This is Buechner's figures not my.He wrote not only SS pows from camp guard have been shoted but and simple Germans soldiers.
To be the honest, not every german pows was killed by Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Killings_by_the_inmates
the inmates pretty well vengeanced their former guard with cruelty.

It has been claimed by eyewitnesses that the freed inmates tortured and killed a number of captured German soldiers, both SS guards and regular troops. The same witnesses claim that many of the German soldiers killed by the inmates were beaten to death with shovels and other tools


And why would only Jews be outraged over the mass killings of their people? Were they supposed to cheer if they were not Jewish?

Not only jews were outraged.
But you have to understand the vengeance is the deeply personal matter- the man can do it only by pesronal reasons.
But what was personal reason for american solders to execute the POWs, if he not a jew ?
May be the native americans found a their relatives or friends to be killed in Dachau?
Do you know other parsonal reason?


This incident has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Bolshevik" crimes...

Not incident- i meant the stoopid comment of David Israel, given him to the Buechner's work.


Many of the biggest Bolshevik killers and War Criminals, like Stalin, weren't even Jewish nor Russian. ..

....just call me few of Biggest Bolshevicks criminals except Stalin?:)

Nickdfresh
08-03-2008, 09:48 AM
You will laugh- Wiki.


The 520 have executed from about 1000 all of GErmans pows that day.
This is Buechner's figures not my.He wrote not only SS pows from camp guard have been shoted but and simple Germans soldiers.
To be the honest, not every german pows was killed by Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Killings_by_the_inmates
the inmates pretty well vengeanced their former guard with cruelty.


I think the "official" estimate is that about 30 or so German SS-men were killed extrajudicially.

Seventeen were shot against the wall, and the rest missed because they ducked, and another 11 or so were summarily executed by individual US troops.

It's an atrocity, certainly. And the US Army investigated it based on other atrocities that were becoming embarrassing as the stories found their way to reporters. Personally, I find the previous incident of the German POWs being killed by asphyxiation, albeit not purposefully, in sealed boxcars on a US prisoner transport train to be far more outrageous and cruel though.

Even if they had been tried, the US troops never would have been convicted in light of the mass murder that took place. Even a defense of "temporary insanity" would have been understandable...


Not only jews were outraged.
But you have to understand the vengeance is the deeply personal matter- the man can do it only by pesronal reasons.
But what was personal reason for american solders to execute the POWs, if he not a jew ?
May be the native americans found a their relatives or friends to be killed in Dachau?
Do you know other parsonal reason?

There were executions of other Germans by American soldiers throughout the War. Some because they had lost relatives, just because they were sadists, or because they felt they were retaliating against various German atrocities and trying to limit or deter future ones. The "personal reasons" would be empathy for the festering corpses naked on railway cars. Thousands would have been a shocking site and I think most people would have been tempted to shoot the victims' warders. Even if those SS men didn't directly kill them, they became the metaphorical representatives of an inhuman system of mass killing because of their ideological purpose as a direct incarnation of the Nazi Party; as opposed to the Wehrmacht members who may have been just Germans trying to defend their homeland despite the terrible policies of their gov't at that point.

Incidentally, what makes you think the American GIs even assumed they were all Jews?


Not incident- i meant the stoopid comment of David Israel, given him to the Buechner's work.


....just call me few of Biggest Bolshevicks criminals except Stalin?:)

There were numbers in the NKVD as well as regular soldiers in the Red Army that also slaughtered German POWs. There were no investigations and it was all state-sanctioned. But I certainly wouldn't blame the average Soviet soldier for being pissed at the Germans. I also realize that if Germany had somehow invaded the US East Coast, been ejected into the sea, and this all followed by a US invasion or Germany -- the War in the West would also have been far more brutal....

Chevan
08-03-2008, 01:17 PM
Incidentally, what makes you think the American GIs even assumed they were all Jews?

i never said they all were a jews.
but i just know for sure that for some jewish soldiers the war was a personal vengenace.
For isntance in Red Army the jewish soldier hated the GErmans very much, and they oftem executed the POWs or killed the wounded enemy soldiers if command was not able to prevent it.
I know a lot of such cases from the Russian veterans recollections from site excellent www.iremember.ru
Also i know that in Americans army were a number of jews, weren't they?
And of cource the jews have the personal reason for cruel vengenace - this can explain the many cruel treatment of GErmans pows.
So i guess the Jews among GIs can be impressed by view of handreds of jewish corpses in Dachau more than average native american soldier.
And probably some leutenant of jewish origin order to open fire at the unarmed SS guard.
Say that this was not possible?

Nickdfresh
08-03-2008, 01:30 PM
i never said they all were a jews.
but i just know for sure that for some jewish soldiers the war was a personal vengenace.
For isntance in Red Army the jewish soldier hated the GErmans very much, and they oftem executed the POWs or killed the wounded enemy soldiers if command was not able to prevent it.
I know a lot of such cases from the Russian veterans recollections from site excellent www.iremember.ru
Also i know that in Americans army were a number of jews, weren't they?
And of cource the jews have the personal reason for cruel vengenace - this can explain the many cruel treatment of GErmans pows.
So i guess the Jews among GIs can be impressed by view of handreds of jewish corpses in Dachau more than average native american soldier.
And probably some leutenant of jewish origin order to open fire at the unarmed SS guard.
Say that this was not possible?

The US Army did have a number of Jews. And certainly they did have a personal chip against the Germans. But the death camps were only a vague rumor with sporadic reporting until the very end and I doubt many joined with the intention of tit-for-tat killing with the Reich. More likely they had greater reason to fear for their fates if the Third Reich won. Hindsight on your part.

In fact, I've heard many Jewish fathers insisted that their kids go into the US Coast Guard, assuming they'd have a greater chance of survival, fearing racial and sectarian annihilation if the rumors were true and if numbers of Jewish men were killed in combat, they would lose their ethnicity...

Nobody told them that it was coast guardsmen that drove US landing craft to the beaches. Or that civilian members of the US Merchant Marine were statistically more likely to die than the average US soldier was...

And as for your question, I didn't say that it was "impossible." Only that there probably wasn't a Jewish officer directly involved in giving orders for the killings nor is it likely that regular GIs are going to simply start shooting prisoners based on the orders of one low ranking (possibly) Jewish officer. In fact, if you read the text, that particular officer merely "followed orders" seemingly reluctantly, and then left...

pdf27
08-03-2008, 01:55 PM
But you have to understand the vengeance is the deeply personal matter- the man can do it only by pesronal reasons.
But what was personal reason for american solders to execute the POWs, if he not a jew ?
Are you sure the reason was vengeance? Quite a lot of people would see it as Justice - after all, for a long time both the UK and Soviet Union were in favour of summary execution of captured senior Nazis, and the Nuremberg trials only happened after the US talked the Soviets around. This isn't so very different, and is an only too human reaction to the magnitude of the crime they found. Certainly given how reluctant the Allied high command were to publicise the Holocaust until very late in the war, it is entirely possible that Allied troops in the West would not assume such people were Jewish. Why should they?

Nickdfresh
08-03-2008, 02:07 PM
Indeed. One has to wonder why there weren't a lot more recorded summary executions of SS...

Chevan
08-03-2008, 02:51 PM
given how reluctant the Allied high command were to publicise the Holocaust until very late in the war, it is entirely possible that Allied troops in the West would not assume such people were Jewish. Why should they?
Do you mean that Holocaust was a TOP secret for Allied troops in 1945?
But they seen it by their own eyes in Dashau.
And there were alot of jews amond dead bodies.Wny the american soldier by jewish origin couldn't commit their own "justice" over pows?
As i said i know a plenty of such stories ( self-justice) in Red Army , commited for personal reasons.

ptimms
08-03-2008, 03:08 PM
Of course Buchner did change his story, if you look on the net his testimony from the Army enquiry exists and he makes no reference to hundreds of dead. In fact he was threatend with court martial as he left the wounded untreated (he was a medical officer) and so may have had an axe to grind against his employers. Certainly stuff I've read now suggest to me I was wrong and the people were camp staff and not Waffen SS as I stated earlier. In fact what the picture shows is a US Officer preventing the slaughter of all the SS, certainly on the sites I've seen they put a convincing argument for 50-60 dead. Certainly revisionists make a big thing of the massacre and use it to say the US Army and the SS were no different, bearing in mind that inmates were dying at 200 odd a day it doesn't wash with me.

pdf27
08-03-2008, 06:09 PM
Do you mean that Holocaust was a TOP secret for Allied troops in 1945?
Very few among the Allies knew about it, and even fewer believed. The first all but a few in Intelligence knew of it was in December 1943 when Anthony Eden announced it in the House of Commons (with simultaneous announcements in Moscow and Washington). Fighting soldiers on the front line tend to have little time for outside news - they're too busy and too cut off. It is entirely plausible that they dismissed this as little more than rumour.


But they seen it by their own eyes in Dashau.
And there were alot of jews amond dead bodies.Wny the american soldier by jewish origin couldn't commit their own "justice" over pows?
As i said i know a plenty of such stories ( self-justice) in Red Army , commited for personal reasons.
Agreed that they saw a lot of dead bodies and emaciated people, speaking a whole bunch of languages the troops didn't themselves speak. How are the American soldiers to know that these people are Jewish? The only identifying mark is a yellow star - the association of this with the Jews would not have been strong in the minds of US soldiers at the time, if it existed at all. How else are they going to realise what is going on within the first few hours, causing exclusively Jewish officers to go over the top and order a massacre? I think you're really straying into cloud cuckoo land if you think this is the most likely explanation.

colonel hogan
12-02-2008, 02:47 PM
they should have they desrved it.do onto others as you want done to you.

mkenny
12-02-2008, 06:18 PM
see

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=392875


Its all there on the first page.

Cpt_Prahl
12-06-2008, 03:01 AM
My friend Curtus Whiteway I and R platoon G company 394th IR 99th divison was one of the first soldiers to see Dachau he liberted Camp 13 and recived Israil's Highest Military Honor in 1994.

Here is a piece of his account. " My men and I which was comprised of a mix of US troops taken from other units and used as a special ops unit was given the task of looking for and capturing a German Officer who was supposed to be in a castle on this mountain when we were on the mountain we hear a strange sound like a whail crossed with a moan so we decided to check it out, when we got to the gate we found 3 jewish men hanging by their private parts strung up with piano wire.

I orderded my men to cut them down some of the men became sick at this site this was one of the first camps liberated we entered the camp and then the fight was on there were still SS Gards there and we had an all out fight with them it was bloody I entered one of the prison barracs where there was a woman lying there and I sat her up so she could watch as my men gave them the business (the germans) . Later we made the female gards bury the dead.

Later after the war was over and Sargent Whiteway was on leave in Colonge a woman grabbed him and started crying and thanking him and he was like who are you? then she explained and started giving them food and wine she had recovered and was now healthy and working at the cafe where they were eating...

One other incident which I find to be important is up unill about 2004 Curtus couldnt understand why the germans who captured him during the bulge had beaten him up and the History professor at Johnson state college asked hm "Curtus are you circumsized?" Reply "yes why would that matter?" "they probably thought you were jewish"

"sometimes you have to use the enemys ways to defete them" Better the lesser of two evils than the greater evil"

Irony He wasnt even jewish

war brings out the worst in men.

Ask yourself this Boys what would you have done in their situation?

All we can expect from soldiers is to try to uphold the greatest of nobel beliefs as best as possible under the worst circomestances.

you can quote me on that one.

redcoat
12-07-2008, 02:59 PM
But you have to understand the vengeance is the deeply personal matter- the man can do it only by pesronal reasons.
But what was personal reason for american solders to execute the POWs, if he not a jew ?


Dachau wasn't a death camp it was a concentration camp, over two thirds of its inmates were political prisoners from all over Europe, only one third was Jewish

Cpt_Prahl
12-09-2008, 03:10 PM
I think Chevan is harboring some anti semetic intentions on this tread who cares what Nationality or religion somone is soldier's do horrible things to each other in times of war and extreme stress.

JUDAISM is a Religion Not a RACE!

Krad42
12-10-2008, 09:38 AM
Of course, the reasons for the Dachau incident must be understood and taking in consideration the great stress that American soldiers had gone through during previous battles and at the sight of whatever horrific scenes they found at Dachau....NOT! As with many other things and events, we're quick to excuse the behavior of those that fought on "our" side while vilifying the actions of our enemies.

The Waffen SS soldiers who were executed at Dachau weren't the guards of the camp. THey were assigned to a garrison not too far from the camp. They weren't in charge of the camp and at no time had any relationship with the camp operation. Not only was this a war crime, but it was also a case of blaming "the just for the sinners".

There were also reports by survivors that Americans killed unarmed men at the hospital. There is also a report that LT. Walsh himself shot four soldiers that had surrenedered to him, soldiers that were later finished off by a private. Of course, just like it happened at Nuremberg, any mention of American atrocities gets "stricken out". After all, how could it possibly be true that Americans could so such a thing?

As for the reasons why anyone would do this, whether it becomes personal or not, perhaps is something that could more easily be explained by the theory of "mob mentality". Who knows? Whatever the reason, it is certainly not enough to excuse it. More than in any country in the world, except perhaps Britain, history in the US tends to be treated with a tendency for "heroification". Our men and leaders can do little wrong. By doing so, not only are we not telling the whole truth, but we're also feeding the same self righteousness that so many other countries loathe us for. We also make it impossible for our society to learn from our mistakes. How can we learn from mistakes that "we've never made"? Who has heard of Schnelessy (sp?) and his court martial for indiscriminately killing several civilians in a German village during an apparent drunken rampage? I was certainly not taught about that in school. Every time that Dachau or any other questionable action by Americans is brought into conversation or discussion, there are always those who immediately wave our flag in the faces of those that question history as it has been told. As if to tell the truth was unpatriotic. I think it is more patriotic to tell the truth and then seek redemption and a way for those mistakes never to be made again, than to slide them under the rug and keep committing the same mistakes over and over again.

flamethrowerguy
12-10-2008, 07:30 PM
Very detailed as well:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

Cpt_Prahl
12-10-2008, 09:34 PM
This history will be continuilally rewritten for years to come as more personal stories come out, Blame the mad men who started the madness soldiers are but pawns in a bigger picture and when you send children off to war what do we expect?

All armies in WW II comitted crimes Patriotism is an even sadder excuse for all of this, right or wrong History is written by the winners Imagine what history would be like today if the Natzis had won?

Better the lesser of two evils than the greater evil I say and good on the soldiers who tried to stop the Shooting.

Payback is a bitch the SS comitted far more atrocities on a far larger scale than anything the Americans could have ever done in WW II, and killing of prisoners was wholsale with the German Army I have personal accounts to prove this, And for someone who has never been in long term combat or ever been in the Military you shouldnt judge the actions of Boy / Soldiers subject to a brutality they shouldnt have been in in the first place.

Place Blame where it is due The German people allowed their Governemt to do what ever they wanted regardless of other nations sovrenty, they cast the first stone and killed far more POW's Than any army in History/excluding the Imperial Army.

Throwing Mud on the memories of soldiers who erred under extreme conditions while fighting for our freedoms is small and juvinile you aught to be thanking them for making mistakes hence a lesson learned.

Instead of trying to compare the crimes nothing NOTHING American soldiers did can compare to the Atrocities the Germans comitted In the second world war. Nothing,

If you disagree then explain that to the MILLIONS of people the Germans deported Murdered and the HUGE amount of destruction that was caused by one nation led out of controll by a Little madman corporal Hiltler.

Now Chevan states personal reasons, How about watching your friends die in a war caused by the guys you are fighting then watch them taken prisoners through a field glass and shot, hmm put yourself in that situation wouldnt you want some payback? War is personal to the Soldiers when it's just you and your foxhole buddy.

Our generation shouldn't even try to compare us with them it's pointless that was then this is now, how about trying to live up to a greater moral and ideal to never repete the mistakes of the past and to abolish Ignornance and Racisim, and foster something better.

I've stayed away from this paticular site for may reasons this being one you cant rewite history only learn from or add to it I find far to many revisionist here on this site and subtle racisits, I personally have ZERO Patience, Humor or sypathy for these types of people.

My Grandfather had nightmares the rest of his life because of that war he earned 4 bronze stars for his actions not to mention the silver star and he was in malmedy the day after the massacare.

They did what they did so we wouldnt have to fight wars like that again and do we learn? Right and wrong are opinions reality is another thing.

BRO forever semper peratus

herman2
12-11-2008, 09:20 AM
Place Blame where it is due The German people allowed their Government to do what ever they wanted regardless of other nations sovrenty, they cast the first stone and killed far more POW's Than any army in History/excluding the Imperial Army.
...........I disagree with this statement. I think the German elections to put Hitler into Power were recorded in history as being rigged. I also don't think the German people knew that Hitler would turn out to be a monster. You are saying that Germans knew about the concentration camps etc...Well, I have 7 Uncles on my father side and 9 uncles on my mothers side who were born in Germany in WW-2. Some were in the war and others not. My grandparents were in the war. Nobody knew about the concentration camps. Some still to this day can’t believe it and are shocked that nobody knew. If they did, I am sure there would have been an uprising. Germans are not all evil just because the stupid Hitler brainwashed some to do his dirty work. Hitler hid the dirty stuff very guarded. The German people are not be blamed for ALLOWING Hitler to do whatever he wanted. Hitler and his henchmen are to blame. When Idi Amyn killed hundred thousand Ugandans do you blame all Ugandans? No, You blame the dictator and those that served under him. I take offence that your statement blames the German people for allowing Hitler to power. Leave the German people alone. Blame those in power and those that exercised the power for abuse.

Cpt_Prahl
12-11-2008, 03:35 PM
oh ok so then he didnt have speach after speach about how evil the jew gypsies were or excluding them of their rights and so on and so forth? Interesting anyone who says that the german people were 100% unaware of their masters doings or that the camps existed needs their head to be checked. I also suppose that the hundres of thousands of propaganda books and posters making the JEW out to be the greatest evil didnt exist either get real. Sure not all germans were for Hitler many many people tried to stop him and were "sent to the camps" pretending that your forfathers had ZERO Idea what was going on is rediculous your false pride clouds your view of reality Have you ever been in combat ? have you ever been shot at shell bombed for months at a time?

Untill you have been in the situation those soldiers were in you have ZERO right to judge them or their actions.

Me well thats another issue you have your opinion I have mine the blessing of Democracy is we dont have to agree or see eye to eye. Unlike 30's Germany.

Cpt_Prahl
12-11-2008, 03:47 PM
Place Blame where it is due The German people allowed their Government to do what ever they wanted regardless of other nations sovrenty, they cast the first stone and killed far more POW's Than any army in History/excluding the Imperial Army.
...........I disagree with this statement. I think the German elections to put Hitler into Power were recorded in history as being rigged. I also don't think the German people knew that Hitler would turn out to be a monster. You are saying that Germans knew about the concentration camps etc...Well, I have 7 Uncles on my father side and 9 uncles on my mothers side who were born in Germany in WW-2. Some were in the war and others not. My grandparents were in the war. Nobody knew about the concentration camps. Some still to this day can’t believe it and are shocked that nobody knew. If they did, I am sure there would have been an uprising. Germans are not all evil just because the stupid Hitler brainwashed some to do his dirty work. Hitler hid the dirty stuff very guarded. The German people are not be blamed for ALLOWING Hitler to do whatever he wanted. Hitler and his henchmen are to blame. When Idi Amyn killed hundred thousand Ugandans do you blame all Ugandans? No, You blame the dictator and those that served under him. I take offence that your statement blames the German people for allowing Hitler to power. Leave the German people alone. Blame those in power and those that exercised the power for abuse.

Ironic that my forfathers are German and Itilian on one side you should read everything I wrote before you take sides or offence you need the get some prespective also 70 years ago things were very different.

Rising Sun*
12-11-2008, 05:40 PM
Place Blame where it is due The German people allowed their Government to do what ever they wanted regardless of other nations sovrenty, they cast the first stone and killed far more POW's Than any army in History/excluding the Imperial Army.
...........I disagree with this statement. I think the German elections to put Hitler into Power were recorded in history as being rigged. I also don't think the German people knew that Hitler would turn out to be a monster. You are saying that Germans knew about the concentration camps etc...Well, I have 7 Uncles on my father side and 9 uncles on my mothers side who were born in Germany in WW-2. Some were in the war and others not. My grandparents were in the war. Nobody knew about the concentration camps. Some still to this day can’t believe it and are shocked that nobody knew. If they did, I am sure there would have been an uprising. Germans are not all evil just because the stupid Hitler brainwashed some to do his dirty work. Hitler hid the dirty stuff very guarded. The German people are not be blamed for ALLOWING Hitler to do whatever he wanted. Hitler and his henchmen are to blame. When Idi Amyn killed hundred thousand Ugandans do you blame all Ugandans? No, You blame the dictator and those that served under him. I take offence that your statement blames the German people for allowing Hitler to power. Leave the German people alone. Blame those in power and those that exercised the power for abuse.

While I agree that it is wrong to accuse all Germans alive during the Nazi era of being pro-Nazi, it is not credible that only those in the government or the party knew what was going on. It is argued (see following quote) by one historian that most Germans had some knowledge of what was happening to the Jews and that the relationship between many Germans and the Nazi Party / Government was bound up with critical issues of national identity and survival.

It is a convenient cop-out to put all the blame on Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy. They didn't force people to participate in Kristallnacht; to boycott Jewish businesses; to volunteer for the SS and Waffen SS; and so on. The people who supported the Nazis couldn't be blind to their racial policies and intentions and they share the blame for everything the German Government did, although there are different degrees of support and knowledge which result in different degrees of guilt or responsibility. Germans who didn't support the Nazis don't share any blame.


Fear of Germany's destruction drove Nazism's appeal, scholar says

6/17/08

Craig Chamberlain, Education Editor
217-333-2894; cdchambe@illinois.edu

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Seventy-five years after the Nazis rose to power, historians still struggle to explain how the Nazis could take such effective hold of Germany and bring it to such murderous extremes in war and in the Holocaust.

In a new book that draws extensively on German diaries and letters of the period (1933-45), University of Illinois historian Peter Fritzsche argues that much of the Nazis’ appeal was driven by deep German fears of national destruction. At the same time, however, most Germans ultimately were not seduced by Hitler and the Nazis, but made deliberate and informed political choices.

The politics of the Third Reich were “premised on both supreme confidence and terrifying vulnerability; both states of mind co-existed and continuously radicalized Nazi policies,” Fritzsche writes in his introduction to “Life and Death in the Third Reich,” published by Harvard University Press.

“The sense of ‘can do’ was wrapped in ‘must do’ ” – including the eventual large-scale murder of Jews, which most Germans were well aware of – because they believed they were fighting for their very existence as a nation, he writes. “The Nazis delivered upon their enemies the very destruction they imagined awaited Germans.”

“It is a huge enabling thing, this worldview,” Fritzsche said. “The perpetrator murders because he believes he is a victim.” It meant “being able to accept almost everything.”

The Nazis shared with many Germans a strong sense of victimhood resulting from the nation’s defeat in World War I, followed immediately by revolution. It was the foundation on which the Nazis built their racial ideology and a national sense of community, and through which many Germans were attracted to Nazi ways of thinking.

The Nazis “completely mobilized the ground on which they stood,” Fritzsche writes, meaning they thoroughly understood the German sense of vulnerability and used it.

“Life and death were thus deeply entangled in the Third Reich,” he writes. “The ways in which Nazism promoted an ideal of German life were inextricably linked to the near-death they believed Germany had suffered in 1918.”

Ultimately, it led to a “dynamic of unconditional destruction that led to the Holocaust. Given these aims, German life meant death.”

In his book, Fritzsche documents that Germans knew quite a bit about the Holocaust, starting with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, during which Jews were killed en masse. The knowledge was common enough that Germans on the home front were warned by the government in 1942 that they would hear some “pretty hard stuff” from soldiers returning on leave from the eastern front, Fritzsche said.

Rather than being duped or seduced by Hitler and the Nazis, German citizens, to a large extent, made “deliberate, self-conscious, and knowledgeable political choices,” Fritzsche writes. National Socialism “exerted strong pressure on citizens to convert” to Nazi ideas and ways of thinking, he writes. But it also designed institutional settings, such as community camps, in which citizens had to grapple with many of the issues involved.

National Socialism “did not succeed through seduction or paralysis or hypnosis. It was by turns unsettling and meaningful to millions of people,” he writes. In letters and diaries, as well as reports from visitors at the time, Germans showed a surprising willingness to discuss their political experiences, he writes.

“The National Socialist revolution intensified self-scrutiny,” Fritzsche writes. Individuals “debated for themselves the whole question of becoming – of becoming a National Socialist, a comrade, a race-minded German, of remaining true to the old or joining the new.” They grappled with questions of fitting in or going along, with the morality of anti-Jewish policies and the conduct of the war.

“The outcome of these examinations varied from person to person,” Fritzsche writes, but “this struggle is what Germans came to share in the Third Reich.”

In the ongoing historical debate about to what extent Germans became Nazis during the years 1933-45, Fritzsche makes the case that “more Germans were Nazis and Germans more National Socialist than was previously thought.”

Fritzsche also found in diaries and letters that “Hitler was not the central figure that one might think” for those living under the Third Reich. “The political scene in most diaries involves the local activities of the National Socialists and their auxiliary organizations … The Nazi project, not Hitler’s charisma, was the main point of orientation; Nazi ideas, and not Hitler’s words, the guiding maxims,” he writes.

Even after years of researching the topic, Fritzsche says “the whole phenomenon of Nazism represents a fundamental challenge to explanation.”

Given that the Nazis “redescribed the world, and got the German people to go along some of the way, scholars need to take seriously National Socialist ideology and its concepts of community, nation, and race,” Fritzsche writes.

“The Nazis are frightening because they expanded notions of what is politically and morally possible in the modern world.” http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/08/0617nazis.html

For a summary of a contemporary personal perspective by a German under the Nazis, see http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm

See also http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html from which the following quote is taken, which illustrates just one of the moral and practical complexities facing Germans who were not ardent Nazis.


"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know."

There were complex historical, economic, social and political issues leading to the rise and continuance of the Nazi regime and there is no 'one size fits all Germans' explanation, justification, or excuse for it.

herman2
12-12-2008, 08:19 AM
oh ok so then he didnt have speach after speach about how evil the jew gypsies were or excluding them of their rights and so on and so forth? Interesting anyone who says that the german people were 100% unaware of their masters doings or that the camps existed needs their head to be checked. I also suppose that the hundres of thousands of propaganda books and posters making the JEW out to be the greatest evil didnt exist either get real. Sure not all germans were for Hitler many many people tried to stop him and were "sent to the camps" pretending that your forfathers had ZERO Idea what was going on is rediculous your false pride clouds your view of reality Have you ever been in combat ? have you ever been shot at shell bombed for months at a time?

Untill you have been in the situation those soldiers were in you have ZERO right to judge them or their actions.

Me well thats another issue you have your opinion I have mine the blessing of Democracy is we dont have to agree or see eye to eye. Unlike 30's Germany.

I am not saying that the Germans didn’t hate the Jews. I think they did. I also think lots of countries hated the Jews. My own city of Toronto had signs on the beach saying No Jews allowed. There is no denying that many Universities in America and Canada put quota’s on how many Jews can enrol. America sent a ship load of Jews back to Germany who were trying to escape during the war years. BUT, I do not believe that the Germans knew that the Jews were going to be gassed or killed. Just because the Jews were used as a scapegoat by Hitler to incite hatred amongst the German people does not dictate that the German people were all killers and wanted the Jews dead. I am not an expert as RS with my reading material, but I can tell you first hand what I know from my large extended family who lived during the war years in Altona Hamburg. No one thought of killing nor knew of the Jew gassing. I know Hitler talked a lot of bad things about the Jews at his speech’s but did he actually make a speech telling the German people that he was going to gas the Jews? If he did then I will retract my statement and be quiet. But I don’t believe he did, and just because the Germans and many Europeans of the time (probably also Australia but I am not sure) hated or disliked the Jews, does not mean people would actually agree to exterminate them. I think that no normal person, regardless of the times, would agree to that. As for Hitler and his Jew hatred, I haven’t met a single German who did not hate Hitler for what he did to the Jews.(Unless you are Neo-Nazi) No one ever said that Hitler was great for doing what he did to the Jews, BUT they will say that Hitler was great for what he did for unemployment, unity, economy etc. If so many Germans knew about the Jew gassings then why were they so shocked when they heard about it after the war. You can’t say they out to know or should have known or did know. Maybe we will never know the answer, but I firmly believe that the majority were kept in the dark about the gassings but, yes they did unfortunately hate the Jews, just like many other countries, although much much stronger in Germany. Didn’t Italy hate the Jews too?...if not they probably hated the Sicilians. It seems there is always someone to hate and that is what makes this world so cold. Peace out and I respect your opinion :)

Rising Sun*
12-12-2008, 08:56 AM
I know Hitler talked a lot of bad things about the Jews at his speech’s but did he actually make a speech telling the German people that he was going to gas the Jews?

Not in so many words, but he was clear on his intention to exterminate them.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm


If he did then I will retract my statement and be quiet. But I don’t believe he did, and just because the Germans and many Europeans of the time (probably also Australia but I am not sure) hated or disliked the Jews, does not mean people would actually agree to exterminate them. I think that no normal person, regardless of the times, would agree to that.

I'm not sure about that.

My father witnessed a mob attack on a Jewish shop in Melbourne, Australia, during the war.

The mob were 'ordinary' or 'normal' Australians. You won't find any reference to such events in our mainstream histories.

But the same vicious anti-semitism survives here http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-holocaust-began-because-words-of-hate-went-unchallenged-20081210-6vtt.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22798945-5000117,00.html


As for Hitler and his Jew hatred, I haven’t met a single German who did not hate Hitler for what he did to the Jews.

Perhaps, but in 1946 you'd have been struggling to find a German who had even heard of the Nazis, let alone been a member. People often reconstruct the past to conform with their present.


No one ever said that Hitler was great for doing what he did to the Jews, BUT they will say that Hitler was great for what he did for unemployment, unity, economy etc. If so many Germans knew about the Jew gassings then why were they so shocked when they heard about it after the war.

Possibly for the same reason that by the middle of the war it was well known in Australia that our forces implemented a "no prisoners" policy and practice towards the Japanese, but if we'd lost the war and been brought to account by Japan I'd bet that there wouldn't be an Aussie who knew a thing about it.



Didn’t Italy hate the Jews too?...if not they probably hated the Sicilians.

Everybody has concerns about Sicilians, especially when they leave Sicily ;) :D , but the Italian tolerance of the Jews actually exasperated the Nazis no end. Coincidentally, it's on the forum calendar today: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-12-12&e=11&c=1

herman2
12-12-2008, 09:16 AM
...strange but you never hear about anyone hating Australians!
Thanks for that info RS:army:

Rising Sun*
12-12-2008, 09:29 AM
...strange but you never hear about anyone hating Australians!

That's what you think!

The worst you have to put up with is Yanks still being pissed off because a very long time ago Canadians burnt Washington and gave the Yanks their White House. For which, given the huge symbolic significance of the White House, you'd think Yanks would be suitably grateful to Canadians. ;) :D

Down here, we're just unpopular with practically every nation to our north-ish and, apart from New Zealand which doesn't matter all that much, there ain't nothing in any other direction. Although this is, in part, a tribute to the arrogant and foolish policies followed by our arrogant and foolish neo-con government of the last thousand years or so, or it seemed to last than long anyway. ;) :(

Cpt_Prahl
12-13-2008, 12:28 PM
and the other half of my family is English and Austraian go figure,

My Great Uncle on Moms side was OSS her father Bomb Squad he was a combat enginer in WWI (meaning he dug trenches), My Grandfather an Officer in The BRO, his brother an enlisted man in the texas 36th DIV (wounded Monte Casion DOW 1958), and my Grandfathers Brother inlaw was a CRAF pilot (Crashed in the Channel tipping V-1's DOW 1956) , and my Aussie relatives I havent researched them yet,

Racisim or any ism in my book is just plain wrong and boils down to intolerance something we all have to deal with every day.

My Grandfather talked about how during the depression you couldnt get a job being "another guinee on the block" so he his 2 orphand brothers changed their name from Cangialosi to Prahl a Dutch/German name the Maiden name of their mother as to at least be able to work. In 1942 at the age of 31 My Grandfather voulenteered for the army at Fort Jay NY and his war began.

No Nation is spotless or innocent but as I said earlier I'd rather be the lesser of two evils than the Greater evil.

Grandad said to me before he died that they fought that war so we wouldnt have to fight another war ever again and bade me, made me promice never to join the Army, ( I did anyway, but that is another story)
It wasnt untill I was an adult and experienced Horror up close and personal That I understood why he did that.

I wish we could all live in peace and get along but we humans have a great ability of doind one thing really well and that is fighting one another and destroying everything around us. I think it would be nice if we could learn to be creative and get along before we finally destroy this planet and ourselves, and for what?

SUV's gasoline mp3 players and fasion, religion?

God Help us all... whoever or whatever he or it is....

Speaking of Germans and jew hating in 2006 I met a Fallsjarmjager who was captured at 10 am on the 6th of June 1944 in St.Merie Du Mont.

He was constantly making jew jokes to see how I would react needless after awhile we had a private conversation about his experience as a prisoner..

" The Day I was capured I had been wounded and the paratroopers of the 82nd took me prisoner I recived immideate treatment for my wounds, it wasnt long after that that they transported me to the beach and I was sent by Hospital ship to england and recived further treatment, then they put us on another ship to Boston, and then I was transported to Chicago where I was put in a Hospital and treated by JEWISH nurses and doctors at first I was scared I thought they were going to poison me or kill me but they didnt they were kind and caring and operated on my wounds one Nurse who was Jewish even would bring me coffe and cigarettes.

After I was healed up enough they shipped me to a POW camp in Texas the Commandant was a Jewish Col. I thought we were in for it even though he was jewish he treated us like soldiers we were fed well and put to work those of us who were enlisted men the officers didnt have to work, it was then that I knew we had been lied to that everything we had been taught for 12 years was a lie I felt ashamed."

Unamed Forward Observer of 9th Fallsjarmjager St. Merie Du Mont June 9th 2006.
(I chose to leave out his name)

This soldier even though he ribbed me and made fun of jews fully admitted to me that he knew what was going on back home and said that they all supported it because they were taught to belive that the jews or any Undermenchen was a threat to their society and existance..

Me unlike many have gone to the source for my opinion(s) I have interviewed countless Veterans German American British, I have interviewed former Buchenwald inmates even.

Most Veterans wont tell you much and hide thier war exept for those who were there or people like me who are tring to fill in the blanks in a specific group...but I am lucky I have a special connection with them and have spent thousands of Hours researching a very specific group so it helped me with my quest..

I do apoloigise if I get intolerant of false ideas or statements it comes from seeing what that mentality can do....

Nickdfresh
12-13-2008, 05:14 PM
That's what you think!

The worst you have to put up with is Yanks still being pissed off because a very long time ago Canadians burnt Washington and gave the Yanks their White House. For which, given the huge symbolic significance of the White House, you'd think Yanks would be suitably grateful to Canadians. ;) :D

Down here, we're just unpopular with practically every nation to our north-ish and, apart from New Zealand which doesn't matter all that much, there ain't nothing in any other direction. Although this is, in part, a tribute to the arrogant and foolish policies followed by our arrogant and foolish neo-con government of the last thousand years or so, or it seemed to last than long anyway. ;) :(

The BRITISH burned Washington (and Buffalo, NY)! :mad: The Canadians love to propagate the "Canadian Militia Myth," but it was the Royal Marines and British Army marauding our coast...

And really, burning down D.C. was among the nicer things they did... ;) Raping and pillaging the countryside was among the nastier - not that American militia hacks invading Canada conducted themselves much better, though...

Hauptmann
12-13-2008, 07:00 PM
This is what Major General Otto Remer had to say about Dachau:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E8T7yOccViU

Rising Sun*
12-13-2008, 10:12 PM
The BRITISH burned Washington (and Buffalo, NY)! :mad: The Canadians love to propagate the "Canadian Militia Myth," but it was the Royal Marines and British Army marauding our coast...

I know that, but I didn't want facts to get in the way of a clever comment. :D

Nickdfresh
03-14-2009, 12:13 PM
Bump!

Chevan
03-15-2009, 01:31 AM
Very detailed as well:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/
This is most detailed research of that massacre i've ever seen.
Well actualy the figure of executed were much more then 17. The only near the part of wall seen probably 20-30 corpses.
But how the last sentence about thousands of soviet pows have been executed there in 1941-42 correlate with the fact it wasn't a death camp?

Chevan
03-15-2009, 01:39 AM
I think Chevan is harboring some anti semetic intentions on this tread who cares what Nationality or religion somone is soldier's do horrible things to each other in times of war and extreme stress.

The NAtionalily has a DAMN deal to cruelty and crimes in that unfair war.
Some peoples should be exterminated ONLY BECOUSE of thier nationality, buddy.


JUDAISM is a Religion Not a RACE!
What does mean such a wide deep sentence?

Nickdfresh
03-15-2009, 06:29 AM
This is most detailed research of that massacre i've ever seen.
Well actualy the figure of executed were much more then 17. The only near the part of wall seen probably 20-30 corpses.
But how the last sentence about thousands of soviet pows have been executed there in 1941-42 correlate with the fact it wasn't a death camp?

Except I do not know where they are getting their numbers from...

And the timeline is also flawed. It claims that US troops were "gunning down" surrendered German SS at 11:30am when resistance did not cease until Noon...I question their scholorship as they're just pulling numbers out of the air. If 560 guards were killed, then how were there ever any prisoners left?

Chevan
03-15-2009, 08:29 AM
Except I do not know where they are getting their numbers from...

Nick , this site is not revisionist, so we migh to trust at least to some of testimonies.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/lee-john.htm

In the waning days of World War II, Army Pfc. John Lee and a few other GIs assembled about 60 German soldiers, lined them up against a wall and shot them down in cold blood as the Germans stood surrendering with their hands in the air.
SO at least 60 were killed ONLY by the THAT guys.
Obviously not 17 as it were pointed in American report prevously.
BTW i didn't know ONLY tiny part of inmates were Jews( less then 2500 from 32 000) total.
And endeed the most of killed were the Soviet citizens.
SO i take my previous words about possible Jewish personal vendetta BACK, sorry to all.

mkenny
03-15-2009, 12:34 PM
The best account of the days actions is the second last post in this thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43919

It is very revealing as to the actions of one of the main claimants to there being 'hundreds' of dead SS men.

The linked 'impartial' site says:
In September 1986, more than 40 years after the massacre at Dachau, retired U.S. Army Colonel Howard Buechner published the first hardcover edition of his long-suppressed book, "The Hour of the Avenger," detailing the grisly events of April 29, 1945.

In my linked thread you can read:

I mention all this to prove that Buechner’s book, so dear to Holocaust deniers and Revisionists like Ernst Zundel, contains multiples of errors and caveats over the alleged massacre of 560 SS troops. Here’s some specific examples from Hour of the Avenger:

a detailed demolition of Buechner is in the link.

It might be interesting to add that Buechner has another book in circulation.

"SECRETS OF THE HOLY LANCE"

"One of the most incredible books on lost treasure, secret societies, ancient relics and WWII ever written. Taking up where The Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft leaves off, this book relates that the Holy Lance was secretly taken to a base in Antarctica, while a replica was returned to the Vienna Museum. A book packed with strange information on Nazi bases in Antarctica, Himmler and the SS, U-boats carrying important Nazis to South America and Hitler's secret treasure."

Read the thread and see if it changes your perceptions

Nickdfresh
03-15-2009, 12:49 PM
This is most detailed research of that massacre i've ever seen.
Well actualy the figure of executed were much more then 17. The only near the part of wall seen probably 20-30 corpses.
But how the last sentence about thousands of soviet pows have been executed there in 1941-42 correlate with the fact it wasn't a death camp?

Chevan, the site might not be revisionist, but it is based on bad scholarship and sensationalist hyperbole...

See the very good response by Mkenny...

And I've never said only 17 SS soldiers died that day. At least 40 to 50 were executed by American soldiers alone that day. Seventeen were killed by the ad hoc "firing squad" assembled in front of the wall. Something that is supported by the photos taken after. Other's were killed in individual summary executions...



The best account of the days actions is the second last post in this thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43919

It is very revealing as to the actions of one of the main claimants to there being 'hundreds' of dead SS men.

The linked 'impartial' site says:
In September 1986, more than 40 years after the massacre at Dachau, retired U.S. Army Colonel Howard Buechner published the first hardcover edition of his long-suppressed book, "The Hour of the Avenger," detailing the grisly events of April 29, 1945.

In my linked thread you can read:

I mention all this to prove that Buechner’s book, so dear to Holocaust deniers and Revisionists like Ernst Zundel, contains multiples of errors and caveats over the alleged massacre of 560 SS troops. Here’s some specific examples from Hour of the Avenger:

a detailed demolition of Buechner is in the link.

It might be interesting to add that Buechner has another book in circulation.

"SECRETS OF THE HOLY LANCE"

"One of the most incredible books on lost treasure, secret societies, ancient relics and WWII ever written. Taking up where The Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft leaves off, this book relates that the Holy Lance was secretly taken to a base in Antarctica, while a replica was returned to the Vienna Museum. A book packed with strange information on Nazi bases in Antarctica, Himmler and the SS, U-boats carrying important Nazis to South America and Hitler's secret treasure."

Read the thread and see if it changes your perceptions

Chevan
03-15-2009, 02:38 PM
Chevan, the site might not be revisionist, but it is based on bad scholarship and sensationalist hyperbole...

Do you mean that the suggestion , it was Death camp where have been executed the thousands of peoples is ONLY sensationalist hyperbole and bad scholarship :D?


See the very good response by Mkenny...

And I've never said only 17 SS soldiers died that day. At least 40 to 50 were executed by American soldiers alone that day.

Well i do agree that up to 80-100 SS-mans probably might have been realy executed that day.
Not 560 that likely is just propogandic overstatement.


Seventeen were killed by the ad hoc "firing squad" assembled in front of the wall.

hardly there were ONLY 17 dead in that photo.
25-30 i suppose.

Nickdfresh
03-15-2009, 03:59 PM
Do you mean that the suggestion , it was Death camp where have been executed the thousands of peoples is ONLY sensationalist hyperbole and bad scholarship :D?

I was referring to the 560 number...;)


Well i do agree that up to 80-100 SS-mans probably might have been realy executed that day.
Not 560 that likely is just propogandic overstatement.

That's probably correct. Although, I think the number was inflated out of ignorance and the attempt to generate shock-value for a book rather than propaganda value. However, it seems to have become a bit of a cause for far-rightists outraged over the death of their dear comrades...

'
hardly there were ONLY 17 dead in that photo.
25-30 i suppose.

I'm not sure which photo you mean, but the most famous one has most of the SS-men laying on the ground even though most of them are still alive and unhurt....it was taken seconds after the shooting stopped I think...

Uyraell
03-16-2009, 05:30 AM
As far as I'm aware the Waffen SS were sent to guard camps until the Allies arrived, simply because the camp guards had fled.
It is Hugely Important to distinguish between the KZ guards and the Waffen SS: a distinction which to this day frequently fails to be made.

It is of note: Waffen SS in rear areas when on leave would often execute a KZ trooper if they caught him. This, because the Waffen SS regarded the KZ Troops as effectively Draft dodgers. I have heard account of such, from the now deceased son of a now deceased Waffen SS Officer.

Perhaps understandably, the American troops made the error of assuming the Waffen SS present at the camp were it's original guards, which they manifestly were not.

A KZ Troop Uniform differs in several details from a Waffen SS Uniform: in the heat of the moment such differences would most likely have been overlooked.

Regards, Uyraell.

peopleselbow
04-06-2009, 04:27 PM
i would also like to know where those photos came from

Cpt_Prahl
05-14-2009, 08:34 PM
Funny how people cry war crimes agains soldiers killing soldiers in the heat of the moment, reflect on the fact that from august 1944 account after account of SS troops killing POWs were abundant, Payback is a bitch you reap what you sew, The troops involved knew who they were killing it's cruel and vengefull but in my opinion fair as the SS were far from Boy Scouts, and once again put yourself in the shoes of a 18 year old US soldier who is scared nervous and afraid for his own life who says some of the SS didnt try to make a run for it? in that case its fair game to shoot, Use Malmedy as an example the german claim that there was an excape attempt and this is why they were killed.

The Photos were taken probably by a combat photgrapher or a soldier who had liberated a camera as personal cameras were suposedly forbiddon. after examining the photos you will notice an signal corps code painted on the print this indicates an Signal Corps photo and there was a statment in one of the interviews to support this.

Cpt_Prahl
05-15-2009, 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt_Prahl
I think Chevan is harboring some anti semetic intentions on this tread who cares what Nationality or religion somone is soldier's do horrible things to each other in times of war and extreme stress.

The NAtionalily has a DAMN deal to cruelty and crimes in that unfair war.
Some peoples should be exterminated ONLY BECOUSE of thier nationality, buddy.

Quote:
JUDAISM is a Religion Not a RACE!

What does mean such a wide deep sentence?
__________________
It means that you cannot define people racially by religion also NO ONE deserves to die because of their nationality or for any reason at all! it's a sick hatefull go nowhere mentality pull your head out of your *** its 2009!

Deaf Smith
05-17-2009, 05:52 PM
I will ask all of you here this:

If you had fought an enemy for a year, came across many terrible death camps where the enemy had murdered thousands, and heard rumors of other camps to. Then came upon such a camp, capture the guards, and see rows and rows. No FIELDs of dead prisoners, human beings who had been starved to death, beaten to death, gassed, and those that were alive crying and thanking your for their salvation.

You see all of this, and these monsters that had done these things right there in front of you, well you tell me you would be a saint and just ask them their name, rank, and serial number.

I do not blame the ones that shot the SS. The SS hands were bloody from the many years they had done such deeds to the Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and others.

They are lucky we didn't take Stalin's proposal to erase Germany from the map.

Deaf

Chevan
05-17-2009, 11:40 PM
Well, i do agree, the SS made a lot of dirty work, although THAT SS-guard possibly didn't commite the crimes( they fled away otherwise ,together with other hight-rank criminals)\
BTW what "Stalin's proposal to erase Germany did you mean?
I know just one proposal so called "Plan Morgentau" - to separate post-war Germany on several lands. Forced partition of GErmany and "industrial disarmament".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

In the original proposal this was to be achieved in three main steps.

-Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
-Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations.
-All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.

Lucky Germans were.
The ONLY beginning of Cold war make US administration partly deny the plan of Germans Partition:)

Deaf Smith
05-18-2009, 06:28 PM
The PBS had a special on Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin (and I respect Churchill far more than Roosevelt, and I’m American.) The special was called, “WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West”.)

Stalin, at a dinner with Churchill and FDR, even proposed shooting at least 100,000 German officers at the end of the war. Churchill deflected it with a joke, but you could tell he didn't like the idea at all. FDR just laughed.

Deaf

Chevan
05-19-2009, 04:27 AM
Stalin, at a dinner with Churchill and FDR, even proposed shooting at least 100,000 German officers at the end of the war. Churchill deflected it with a joke, but you could tell he didn't like the idea at all. FDR just laughed.

Deaf

FDR was Laughing coz it was indeed..famouse Stalin's joke about 100 000 of germans officers that "would have been executed after the war".
Churchill often didn't know when exactly unce Joe joking or not.:)
Stalin , knowing that CHurch looks on him as at Dictator, sometimes made a joke with Church.
As later CHurchill recollected in his memours( "second world war") - Stalin was absolutly serious.
But the son of FDR ,Eliot Roosvelt wrote detailts about that dinner - that Curchill didn't endeed "deflected it with a joke" - but was pissed off on STalin and answer something kinda - "our people don't admit such a brutality"
Churchill was really irritated - he didn't get such Stalin joke.
Roosvelt , who much beter seen and understood the STalin's humour, then try to save the situation , loudly laughting.
He better know STalin- that's why i think he was much more importaint figure in Allied Coalition then the Brtitish premier..
It was Roosvelt who really has tied our coalition together.( well at least those two - Stalin and CHurchill)

gumalangi
05-20-2009, 03:24 PM
To some points, i should agree that, event waffen SS should be blamed as any other SS formations be it SD, SA or the deathcamp's guards,
as it is understood, the source of manpower for SS organization was limited and restricted, and priority was given to army/Navy/Airforce.

Therefor, concentration guards pool are become one of their main manpower resources. So by all means, for any waffen SS individuals, they were once a concentration camp themself before, definetely, they aware of what was happening inside the fence. (cases might be different if they are volkdeutsche or SS 'foreign legion')

But the moral story should stand still, small sin or big sin, they both are sins,
even those SSmen deserved to be hang, let the trial proof it. THIS make the cause of the fight different from the other side.

I saw one reply here mentioned about the Bali Bombers, it is true, that the lawyer play around with their right or justice towards those bastards, and this make most people sick of them. But let them be, simply becouse we are not as what they are, who were indiscrimately blasting peboms without concerning of the live of the innocents.

We have to set a different between us and them, irregardless, There were wise words from family of the deceased of the 1st Bali bom, when asked whether or not he wants to personally kill the bombers for the death of his brother, he replied." may God and Justice decide upon them of their fate, I was and still in grief upon my brother, I would gladly see them dead, but it is not my right to take their -the terrorist'- life"

flamethrowerguy
05-20-2009, 04:04 PM
To some points, i should agree that, event waffen SS should be blamed as any other SS formations be it SD, SA or the deathcamp's guards.

The SA had nothing to do with the SS. The relation between both organisations can be described as problematic - to put it mildly.



Therefor, concentration guards pool are become one of their main manpower resources.

Not at all. The only Waffen-SS unit which had undergone an exchange with concentration camp personnel was 3rd SS "Totenkopf". Altogether we're talking about ~6000 men here, app. one third of the division's nominal strength.

gumalangi
05-20-2009, 04:21 PM
[QUOTE=flamethrowerguy;156910]The SA had nothing to do with the SS. The relation between both organisations can be described as problematic - to put it mildly.
QUOTE]

ah yes,. sorry,. it is now 3am in my place,. keep typing without thinking :rolleyes:
sturmabteilung is definetely not part of anything but Ernst Rohm personal tool to pursue his own ambition

gumalangi
05-20-2009, 04:27 PM
Not at all. The only Waffen-SS unit which had undergone an exchange with concentration camp personnel was 3rd SS "Totenkopf". Altogether we're talking about ~6000 men here, app. one third of the division's nominal strength.

my book,. Waffen SS, written by Keith simpsons never mentioned on the ratio or numbers taken, when Himmler source the lack of manpower for his 3rd SS division.

it was about 6500 of them, :oops: i close my case,. and thanks for the correction, it was always in my mind, that concentration camp keep supplying troops to the waffen SS formation.

flamethrowerguy
05-20-2009, 06:13 PM
Actually the main character behind this was SS-Obergruppenführer Theodor Eicke, commander of 3rd SS "Totenkopf" and before that Inspector of the Concentration Camps.
BTW, Eicke was personally involved in the liquidation of Ernst Röhm in 1934.

Cpt_Prahl
08-15-2009, 04:50 AM
I have to say something here in December of 1944 when my Grandfathers regiment came to the relief of the 2nd and 99th Divisons in the norther sholder of the bulge, they first hand saw the work of the 1SS this was in several towns the dead bodies of Civilians and American Airborne shot by the SS they Saw first hand the dead in Malmedy and Butebach and a few other small villages, after this it was open season on the SS, no mercy, no prisoners taken unless orderd so by HQ, if you cant understand the reality of being a front line soldier in war they you shouldn't be so fast to make judgement on what is right or wrong because under those circomstances in the field when there is no government, just Military order, people are dying all around you and you don't really want to be there fighting and you just want to get the damn war over with, you do horrible and somtimes in the eyes of the civilian world "wrong" Things to bring it all to an end.

On the other hand when you are the hand of justice in this chaotic world you on the spot decide the hand of Justice in a swift and short manner as there is little time and sometimes no way to get prisoners back to HQ, also to impress upon your enemy their fate, if you keep on using dirty tactics and methods to force the civilian poulation to do you will. As the SS did in WW II, you either did as you were told or you werte shot on the spot. So sometimes the return happens back its called Justice in many peoples eyes.

This was the way of the SS so any fool who thinks that by reading a book or 2 on the subject has the experience and knowledge to make such assumptions and judgements, first put yourself in the shoes of the SS and then of the Allies would you treat an enemy with kindness fairness and leagaees when they didnt at all? or just shoot them on the spot to prove a point?

I know for a fact that My Grandfather and his troops actions in WW II would in todays terms be deemed conduct unbecoming and probably be court marshalled and put in prison but those were very different times than today and hopefully because we have places like this to express our freedom of speach and debate we will never repete those mistakes again.


I'll site a story told to me by a certain sargent from the regiment on this subject during an interview with him and his squad in 2005.

"see we had just come upon a fixed position manned by some hitler youth and an SS Officer we gave them the chance to surrender first before firing a shot they didn't take the offer so after the little bastards fired every round fired every panzer fasust and grenade they came out of the the position yelling Nicht Shootzen kameraten nicht shootzen" I looked at the Lt and asked what do we do? He didnt say a word he just gave the slash across the throat and we killed every single one of them on the spot."

right or wrong this is what they did, I would have too under the circomestances do you want a bunch of fanatics runnning around germany after the end of the war? people who were so obviously so brainwashed that given the chance to surrender when completley outnumbered they would blindly follow the orders given to them when anyone in their right mind would surrender? or that they would fire all of their ammo and then surrender?

also rember that Pattons standing orders were that "any German caught doing an act of agression and then surrendering was to be shot on the spot" IE the mentality being if your going to surrender do it before not after doing a deed of agression...

Sure the slaughter of prisoners is a very bad thing but think of who they were killing were they honorable soldiers? who treated the civilian populations of the countries they occupied with decency and respect? NO they were arrogant monsters who treated them as slaves subserviants and this in my eyes and many many soldiers eyes is reason enough to justify the means.

remember it only takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch and as we are a sum of an whole not the sum of the Idividual in this world. hence why even today we make the same bad assumptions on a broad level.

Rising Sun*
08-15-2009, 04:56 AM
BTW, Eicke was personally involved in the liquidation of Ernst Röhm in 1934.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

HOS Bandit
10-16-2010, 09:11 PM
Spoken like someone who's never served his country, and who's never had to deal with any type of combat stress. And as Cpt. Prahl so elequently put it, throwing mud on the memory of soldiers that you aren't fit to shine their boots for, is petty, juvenile, and pathetic. You prate about injustice, and how "We" the U.S. sweep things under the rug, so too speak.All countries have their "dirty little secrets" but the U.S. has time and time again, acknowledged theirs, albeit not necessarily at the time they happen. And as far as 'Schnelessy' goes, why in Gods name should that have been required reading in any school curriculum? As far as my opinion on the whole Dachau incident goes; I think that it was wrong for the GI's too have 'executed the SS men, if you don't have a weapon in your hand, and your hands are raised, you should be considered a POW. Having said that, I can fully understand the dynamics involved that allowed that situation to disintegrate as it did. I also fail too understand Chevans prediliction for the "Jewish" in his posts, that is neither here nor there, Once again I'll source Cpt. Prahl when he states "how about watching friends die in a war caused by the guys you are fighting," as a personal reason. Chevans fixation on Jews highlights his own prejudices.

Rising Sun*
10-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Spoken like someone who's never served his country...

Whether or not anyone on this forum has served their country, or someone else's country, is immaterial to their entitlement as a member of a historical forum to comment.

Some of the best, and best informed, contributors to this forum over many years were still at school.


and who's never had to deal with any type of combat stress

WTF does that have to do with killing or mistreating people outside combat? Or do you think My Lai, or Abu Ghraib, were justifiable? If so, then Nazi events such as Oradour were equally justifiable.

And here I was, thinking that one of the factors which the Allies liked to think distinguished them from the Axis, or at least the Nazis and Japanese, was that the Allies didn't engage in wholesale slaughter of POWs and civilians, with or without 'combat stress'.


And as Cpt. Prahl so elequently put it, throwing mud on the memory of soldiers that you aren't fit to shine their boots for, is petty, juvenile, and pathetic.

Exactly where did I do that?

Or maybe, by some curious twist of thinking, you think my comments at #14 and #15 constitute 'throwing mud on the memory of soldiers you aren't fit to shine the boots for, is petty, juvenile and pathetic'.


You prate about injustice, and how "We" the U.S. sweep things under the rug, so too speak.

Do I?

Please specify the posts in this thread where I did that?

It would be interesting to see you specify how my flippant comment about Eicke helping get rid of Roehm supports your last post, because I'm ****ed if I can see the relationship.


All countries have their "dirty little secrets" but the U.S. has time and time again, acknowledged theirs, albeit not necessarily at the time they happen.

The reason America, like every other country which did wrong, didn't acknowledge its wrongs at the time was because they didn't want them to come out.

It's nonsense to try to make a virtue out of the failure of America's, or any other country's, officialdom to conceal bad things when the reality is that such things came out only because of the courage of individuals who swam against the current created by the national administration.

You seem a bit oversensitive to comments which haven't been made which you choose to imagine as being anti-American. Which is precisely why that type of American-centric attitude pisses off a large part of the population of the rest of the planet.

Americans are less than 5% of the world's population. The other 95% are as entitled to their opinion as are Americans.

Nickdfresh
10-17-2010, 07:31 AM
Spoken like someone who's never served his country, and who's never had to deal with any type of combat stress.

Whom exactly are you talking about? This thread is years old and the last post in it was over a year ago...


And as Cpt. Prahl so elequently put it, throwing mud on the memory of soldiers that you aren't fit to shine their boots for, is petty, juvenile, and pathetic.

"cpl." Prahl was a troll ****bag that's never served anything and claims to be an American that refuses to live in his own country (if that's the case)...

Rising Sun*
10-17-2010, 07:46 AM
Whom exactly are you talking about?

I assumed it was me, given his reference to 'you' and me being the last post.

Then again, I might have been engaging in me-centric thinking similar to the American-centric thinking of which I accused HOSBandit.

However, his signature 'Za Dom Spremni' ain't exactly a pro-American, or any American, statement. It's the 'Seig Heil' of the rabid Yugoslav fascists in the Ustashe in WWII.

HOS might be a remarkable coincidence with Hrvatske obrambene snage, or HOS, being the Croatian militia during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.

I am sensing a troll of the feral neo-Nazi type sailing under the false colours of a proud American.

Nickdfresh
10-17-2010, 07:56 AM
I assumed it was me, given his reference to 'you' and me being the last post.

Then again, I might have been engaging in me-centric thinking similar to the American-centric thinking of which I accused HOSBandit.

However, his signature 'Za Dom Spremni' ain't exactly a pro-American, or any American, statement. It's the 'Seig Heil' of the rabid Yugoslav fascists in the Ustashe in WWII.

HOS might be a remarkable coincidence with Hrvatske obrambene snage, or HOS, being the Croatian militia during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.

I am sensing a troll of the feral neo-Nazi type sailing under the false colours of a proud American.

Hmmmm...verrrry Interesting...

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Very-Interesting.png

Rising Sun*
10-17-2010, 08:11 AM
Hmmmm...verrrry Interesting...

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Very-Interesting.png


Ja, ist gut zat ve keep ze veels turning on ze trolls.


http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/522/tricycle.jpg (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/tricycle.jpg/)

HOS Bandit
10-17-2010, 09:53 AM
My comments weren't directed at you RisingSun. I missplaced my reply somehow. I was commenting on something that Krad42 had said. I am no neo-nazi troll wearing the guise of an patriotic American. I didn't realize at the time how old the thread was, and was only responding to Krad42's use of "NOT" at the end of his sentence where he talked about soldiers and combat stress, and such. My intention wasn't to kick up a shit storm, I also said in my post that I didn't condone the summary execution of those SS soldiers. I rarely come into the forum because of situations like this. My signature is Za Dom Spremni, yes. For the homeland, i am ready. But it is my way of honoring my Fathers Uncles and Cousins who fought and died for Croatia in WW2. Were they on the wrong side, so to speak? Yes, I suppose they were. But that could be said for alot of members here. It doesn't make me a neo-nazi troll, as you put it. And HOS has connatations that have nothing to do with 1990 Yugoslavia. And as far as my quoting this Capt. Prahl, who has apparently been outed as a fraud and a liar, weather he was or not, a couple of his posts had nuggets of info I felt were worth quoting. My doing so in no way should have been constued as any kind of an endorsement of the guy. In ending I just want to say once again, that my post wasn't directed at you, and I apologise for inadvertantly placing it in the wrong place. And now, after hopefully explaining enough too get my name removed from the sinister troll list, I bid you all adieu for another six months or so.

tankgeezer
10-17-2010, 10:08 AM
I think the "spirits"(the ghost of St. Gin of Tonic) moved him to Necro post (or Necro troll as the case may be.)

flamethrowerguy
10-17-2010, 01:58 PM
My comments weren't directed at you RisingSun. I missplaced my reply somehow. I was commenting on something that Krad42 had said. I am no neo-nazi troll wearing the guise of an patriotic American. I didn't realize at the time how old the thread was, and was only responding to Krad42's use of "NOT" at the end of his sentence where he talked about soldiers and combat stress, and such. My intention wasn't to kick up a shit storm, I also said in my post that I didn't condone the summary execution of those SS soldiers. I rarely come into the forum because of situations like this. My signature is Za Dom Spremni, yes. For the homeland, i am ready. But it is my way of honoring my Fathers Uncles and Cousins who fought and died for Croatia in WW2. Were they on the wrong side, so to speak? Yes, I suppose they were. But that could be said for alot of members here. It doesn't make me a neo-nazi troll, as you put it. And HOS has connatations that have nothing to do with 1990 Yugoslavia. And as far as my quoting this Capt. Prahl, who has apparently been outed as a fraud and a liar, weather he was or not, a couple of his posts had nuggets of info I felt were worth quoting. My doing so in no way should have been constued as any kind of an endorsement of the guy. In ending I just want to say once again, that my post wasn't directed at you, and I apologise for inadvertantly placing it in the wrong place. And now, after hopefully explaining enough too get my name removed from the sinister troll list, I bid you all adieu for another six months or so.

Unfortunately Krad42 isn't on the board no more since god-knows-when but I can assure that she did serve her country well.

Rising Sun*
10-17-2010, 06:32 PM
My comments weren't directed at you RisingSun. I missplaced my reply somehow. I was commenting on something that Krad42 had said. I am no neo-nazi troll wearing the guise of an patriotic American. I didn't realize at the time how old the thread was, and was only responding to Krad42's use of "NOT" at the end of his sentence where he talked about soldiers and combat stress, and such. My intention wasn't to kick up a shit storm, I also said in my post that I didn't condone the summary execution of those SS soldiers. I rarely come into the forum because of situations like this. My signature is Za Dom Spremni, yes. For the homeland, i am ready. But it is my way of honoring my Fathers Uncles and Cousins who fought and died for Croatia in WW2. Were they on the wrong side, so to speak? Yes, I suppose they were. But that could be said for alot of members here. It doesn't make me a neo-nazi troll, as you put it. And HOS has connatations that have nothing to do with 1990 Yugoslavia. And as far as my quoting this Capt. Prahl, who has apparently been outed as a fraud and a liar, weather he was or not, a couple of his posts had nuggets of info I felt were worth quoting. My doing so in no way should have been constued as any kind of an endorsement of the guy. In ending I just want to say once again, that my post wasn't directed at you, and I apologise for inadvertantly placing it in the wrong place. And now, after hopefully explaining enough too get my name removed from the sinister troll list, I bid you all adieu for another six months or so.

Fair enough.

Apology accepted.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2011, 02:25 PM
BUMP! Pertinent to several discussions in the Photo side...

Boutte
02-01-2012, 11:09 AM
I have to say something here in December of 1944 when my Grandfathers regiment came to the relief of the 2nd and 99th Divisons in the norther sholder of the bulge, they first hand saw the work of the 1SS this was in several towns the dead bodies of Civilians and American Airborne shot by the SS they Saw first hand the dead in Malmedy and Butebach and a few other small villages, after this it was open season on the SS, no mercy, no prisoners taken unless orderd so by HQ, if you cant understand the reality of being a front line soldier in war they you shouldn't be so fast to make judgement on what is right or wrong because under those circomstances in the field when there is no government, just Military order, people are dying all around you and you don't really want to be there fighting and you just want to get the damn war over with, you do horrible and somtimes in the eyes of the civilian world "wrong" Things to bring it all to an end.

On the other hand when you are the hand of justice in this chaotic world you on the spot decide the hand of Justice in a swift and short manner as there is little time and sometimes no way to get prisoners back to HQ, also to impress upon your enemy their fate, if you keep on using dirty tactics and methods to force the civilian poulation to do you will. As the SS did in WW II, you either did as you were told or you werte shot on the spot. So sometimes the return happens back its called Justice in many peoples eyes.

This was the way of the SS so any fool who thinks that by reading a book or 2 on the subject has the experience and knowledge to make such assumptions and judgements, first put yourself in the shoes of the SS and then of the Allies would you treat an enemy with kindness fairness and leagaees when they didnt at all? or just shoot them on the spot to prove a point?

I know for a fact that My Grandfather and his troops actions in WW II would in todays terms be deemed conduct unbecoming and probably be court marshalled and put in prison but those were very different times than today and hopefully because we have places like this to express our freedom of speach and debate we will never repete those mistakes again.


I'll site a story told to me by a certain sargent from the regiment on this subject during an interview with him and his squad in 2005.

"see we had just come upon a fixed position manned by some hitler youth and an SS Officer we gave them the chance to surrender first before firing a shot they didn't take the offer so after the little bastards fired every round fired every panzer fasust and grenade they came out of the the position yelling Nicht Shootzen kameraten nicht shootzen" I looked at the Lt and asked what do we do? He didnt say a word he just gave the slash across the throat and we killed every single one of them on the spot."

right or wrong this is what they did, I would have too under the circomestances do you want a bunch of fanatics runnning around germany after the end of the war? people who were so obviously so brainwashed that given the chance to surrender when completley outnumbered they would blindly follow the orders given to them when anyone in their right mind would surrender? or that they would fire all of their ammo and then surrender?

also rember that Pattons standing orders were that "any German caught doing an act of agression and then surrendering was to be shot on the spot" IE the mentality being if your going to surrender do it before not after doing a deed of agression...

Sure the slaughter of prisoners is a very bad thing but think of who they were killing were they honorable soldiers? who treated the civilian populations of the countries they occupied with decency and respect? NO they were arrogant monsters who treated them as slaves subserviants and this in my eyes and many many soldiers eyes is reason enough to justify the means.

remember it only takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch and as we are a sum of an whole not the sum of the Idividual in this world. hence why even today we make the same bad assumptions on a broad level.

Best post in the whole thread.

leccy
02-04-2012, 07:12 AM
Originally Posted by Cpt_Prahl
I'll site a story told to me by a certain sargent from the regiment on this subject during an interview with him and his squad in 2005.

"see we had just come upon a fixed position manned by some hitler youth and an SS Officer we gave them the chance to surrender first before firing a shot they didn't take the offer so after the little bastards fired every round fired every panzer fasust and grenade they came out of the the position yelling Nicht Shootzen kameraten nicht shootzen" I looked at the Lt and asked what do we do? He didnt say a word he just gave the slash across the throat and we killed every single one of them on the spot."

right or wrong this is what they did, I would have too under the circomestances do you want a bunch of fanatics runnning around germany after the end of the war? people who were so obviously so brainwashed that given the chance to surrender when completley outnumbered they would blindly follow the orders given to them when anyone in their right mind would surrender? or that they would fire all of their ammo and then surrender?

also rember that Pattons standing orders were that "any German caught doing an act of agression and then surrendering was to be shot on the spot" IE the mentality being if your going to surrender do it before not after doing a deed of agression...

I have severe problems with this part of the quote.

By this reckoning the US defenders of Bastogne could have been shot if they finally surrendered, after all they were offered the chance and never took it despite being outnumbered.

If you were in a good defensive position would you surrender, if you held out for as long as you could (munitions expended), then with no chance of escape or resupply you surrendered . You would be happy to be shot because you could have surrendered before fighting.

Pattons quote is difficult to support as the whole of WW2 was aggression. When the Germans invaded Poland the shooting war started, it never stopped until 1945 in Europe so any German taken prisoner before VE Day was to be shot on the spot.

Rising Sun*
02-04-2012, 08:11 AM
I'll site a story told to me by a certain sargent from the regiment on this subject during an interview with him and his squad in 2005.

"see we had just come upon a fixed position manned by some hitler youth and an SS Officer we gave them the chance to surrender first before firing a shot they didn't take the offer so after the little bastards fired every round fired every panzer fasust and grenade they came out of the the position yelling Nicht Shootzen kameraten nicht shootzen" I looked at the Lt and asked what do we do? He didnt say a word he just gave the slash across the throat and we killed every single one of them on the spot."

right or wrong this is what they did, I would have too under the circomestances do you want a bunch of fanatics runnning around germany after the end of the war? people who were so obviously so brainwashed that given the chance to surrender when completley outnumbered they would blindly follow the orders given to them when anyone in their right mind would surrender? or that they would fire all of their ammo and then surrender?

also rember that Pattons standing orders were that "any German caught doing an act of agression and then surrendering was to be shot on the spot" IE the mentality being if your going to surrender do it before not after doing a deed of agression...

I think I missed these points the last time around (I haven't trawled back through every post).

1. I don't think that 'schootzen' is German for 'shooting', although perhaps it could sound like that to non-Germans. Perhaps FTG could comment.

2. If murdering soldiers who surrender after fighting to their limit is a commendable or at least permissible action by the victor, Cpt Prahl must be terminally dismayed by the vastly magnamimous leniency showed to the surrendering Americans and Filipinos on the Bataan Death March where most survived instead of all being murdered where they surrendered after fighting to their limit, and by the Japanese allowing those captured in Singapore to work on the Burma Railway and sending some of the survivors to Japan to work in the coalmines etc instead of wiping them all out where they stood after the surrender.

3. What some people, like me, think of as the commendably pugnacious 'never say die' attitude of the likes of Chesty Puller is, according to Cpt Prahl, obviously the murder-deserving attitude of brainwashed fanatics who should be exterminated if they dare to fight to their limit before surrendering. These deplorably fanatically brainwashed attitudes are exemplified by quotes such as these, or along the lines of, attributed to Chesty Puller:
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem of killing these people."
"We have enemy in front of us; behind us; to our left; and to our right. The bastards won't get away this time!"

It can be a fine line between accepting a surrender at section or platoon level and finishing off a determined but exhausted opponent in the heat of the moment, and it all depends upon the circumstances, but murdering soldiers just because they have fought to their limit before surrendering is not condoned by the laws of war or basic principles of humanity.

Nickdfresh
02-04-2012, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by Cpt_Prahl
....

also rember that Pattons standing orders were that "any German caught doing an act of agression and then surrendering was to be shot on the spot" IE the mentality being if your going to surrender do it before not after doing a deed of agression...

Cpt. Prahl is long gone, but I don't recall Patton saying anything like this and he is obviously paraphrasing in his then tyical omniscient voice...

Evillittlekenny
02-05-2012, 02:46 AM
1. I don't think that 'schootzen' is German for 'shooting', although perhaps it could sound like that to non-Germans. Perhaps FTG could comment.



I will be faster than FTG :)

"schootzen" indeed does not come really close to the German word for shooting, it is "schießen/schiessen". However "Schützen" (the closest English transcription I can think of is indeed something like schootzen) is either "to protect" or the plural of rifleman (riflemen).

Nickdfresh
02-06-2012, 01:23 PM
The following was from a speech by Gen. Patton, but it should be noted that he was quoted (and perhaps paraphrased) by officers present and not by stenographer. From his Wiki page:


When we land against the enemy, don't forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender – oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. Stick him in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion he will fight less. We must build up that name as killers.

— George S. Patton[26]


Patton, known for florid exaggerations and superfluousness, was clearly talking about killing within the context of combat, the heat-of-the-moment and not accepting surrenders during the fight (something which often happened anyways, as adrenaline filled soldiers often continue to fire on those that might be attempting to quit during the battle). He clearly isn't talking about summary execution of disarmed combatants under guard...

forager
02-06-2012, 05:16 PM
Combat is not nearly as clear cut and definitve as some insist on viewing it.
Best appreciated through actual experience.
The Cambodian irregulars I worked with killed any Viet who even attempted to give up.
We could not interfere.

My dad, 506th PIR, took part in liberating some camps.
He wrote that they took no SS prisoners after that.
War was soon over, but he had a dim view of Germans the rest of his life.

Boutte
02-06-2012, 09:05 PM
If you haven't been in a war, been shot at, spent month or years living like an animal, watched your friends die brutal deaths and grown accustomed to violence, brutality and bloodshed, then you're probably not qualified to judge what these men did.

flyerhell
02-06-2012, 10:06 PM
My dad, 506th PIR, took part in liberating some camps.
He wrote that they took no SS prisoners after that.
War was soon over, but he had a dim view of Germans the rest of his life.

My great uncle who also liberated camps told of a similar story - after seeing what the Germans did, Patton made some kind of speech telling the soldiers to take no prisoners. I wasn't sure how much credit to give to this story - I heard it more than 60 years after it happened and my great uncle's mind wasn't so great at the time...until I saw the exact same story in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=ir2Z_oK5Ui4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=gi+jews&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n6EwT-G0Cqf20gGNuc3iBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=take a prisoner&f=false (check out page 229).

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the Dachau issue...It's very important to keep the context and mindset of the soldiers in mind when discussing things like this. These are guys who were in continuous combat for almost a full year by this point. They've seen and been through horrible things and they were probably still very angry over things like the Malmedy massacre. It wasn't a planned or calculated act - from my understanding, it was done by a minority of soldiers. By this point, human life probably meant little to them and seeing Dachau was probably the final "breaking point" for those soldiers.