Umm.....no?

I'm sure they would. I believe the SAS was already regarded as a bunch of resistance fighters (terrorists) & not subject to the Geneva Convention for PoWs. Even if they wore uniform, members of the SAS unfortunate enough to be captured were likely to be shot.

Hitlers infamous 'Commando Order' explicitly said that commandos should be wiped out, or if any were captured they should immediately be handed over to the SD (Securitheit Dienst) for a 'chat'.
The same applied to SOE agents.
After the war several former members of the SAS were involved in tracking down and bringing to justice ex-Gestapo/SS/SD officers for their crimes against their SAS colleagues... it is horrifying to think how low people can sink and what they can do to one another

Sorry Björn My German is v.rusty, I'm amazed I nearly got it right

Ja, du kommst aus Deutschland, ja?

Mmmm....I had a feeling that the Commando Order issued by mustouche man would stand after the war, even tho they weren't "less careful who they shot at" than the SS.


A.

I don't doubt for a second that the Nazi regime would have hunted and attempted to assasinate or imprison any member of a British intelligence organization that it could find.

If Germany had won the war these people would doubtless have been flown to America in advance for the same reason.

Similarly, the Nuremberg war crimes trials were an American/British/French check on the Soviets, who would have been inclined to sentence any German soldier to a firing squad.  I may be incorrect but "World at War" told me that only 10% of (Soviet) captured German soldiers lived to be repatriated - propably to East Germany.

The Soviets would, of course, have made special plans for Hitler and the high command.

The winners are always right; therefore it sounds very likely to me that organisations like SAS would have been treated like a terrorist organisation if Hitler had won the war.
But what I dont understand is (for example) that there are still numerous monuments in the UK representing Air Marshall Arthur Harris, aka as "Bomber-Harris". From 1942 on, he introduced a new strategy which consisted in destroying the citys of germany in order to demoralize the people. Those raids culminated in the destruction of Dresden in 1945. Dresden, with a population of 600,000, was the refuge for about another 600,000 people, families fleeing from the russians. Only in one night, nearly 300,000 civilians died from Harris´bombs.
This is, not only in my eyes, a warcrime. Nevertheless, England won the war; Harris became a national hero.

The winner is always right.

Its very touchy, but they really were asking for it, lets not foget the sinking of passenger liners by German U Boats in 1940...but war is war.I've seen pictures from the Hamburg firestorm and they were truly shocking, but..well....as you say, the winner is always right.

A.

Quote:


Sorry Andrew, but of the 200,000 to 300,000 (the figure varies) that were taken prisoner at Stalingrad, only 5,000 returned (that figure never varies).

I'm led to believe that the majority died from disease and starvation, rather than from physical assault and murder (although there is a thin line).

I'm not sure of the actual figure for the ALL the Germans taken prisoner by the Russians, but I have heard and read the Stalingrad figure time and again from many sources. I'm sure the overall figure is not as bad as the Stalingrad one, in fact nowhere near it. But that particular army was very unfrotunate in that regard. 

I'm personally appalled by any kind of cuelty towards anyone for any reason. However, there was a war. We all know it and some of us know what that means first hand in terms of what it can do to you, as a soldier and as a human being.

As for the 'war crimes' committed by the Allies and the 'questionable' tactics, raids and pratices, I can only say this.

At the risk of sounding 'unfeeling' (which I am not - nor am I unsympathetic towards the 'innocents' in Germany).

Had Germany not started a war born simply out of revenge (for WWI and Versaielles), greed (for the land and raw materials of other nations) and arrogance (their belief in their own superiority over other races), none of these things would have occurred.

No other nation in Europe wanted war. The appeasement and grovelling that went on before they finally realised the truth is testamant to that.

And the very same goes for the Japanese.

This is, as I said, not born out of an unfeeling attitude. I hate to think of what every single person went through, regardless of what side they were on, but when you have so many millions of people fighting, at times, with the very survival of their homes and families at stake, some bad decisions are bound to be made, especially by people who have lost sons, brothers, daughters, mothers and even young children to the enemies terrors.

In light of this, the Hamburg and Dresden raids can be understood, at least partly, in the interest of simply shortening the war (whether that was the instigators reasoning doesn't matter, although I'm sure it was as far as Trumans A-Bomb decision is concerned).

The plain fact is, the concentration camps, inhuman cruelty towards POWS (by Japanese and sometimes German), medical experiments (by both German and Japanese) and the terrorising of civilian populations (by both German and Japanese) were NOT 'bad decisions' made by individuals in haste or under duress or in any other mitigating circumstance. They were systematic, purposeful, intentional 'programs', which were ordered, documented and carried out by tens of thousands.

There are no excuses and there is nothing that the Allies did that can in any way be compared to that kind of premeditated inhumanity to man.

In the immortal words of a famous person: "They started it. We finished it!"

P.S. When I say German, I mean more specifically 'NAZI'. But I'm sorry, I have no codicil for the Japanese.

I recall that episode, Webb. In fact, I don't have to recall too much. I saw it last week on Fox (we get heaps of ST every day - all series').

The fact that you've mentioned that the reality of how horrible war is, is naturally abhorrent to us as human beings, reinforces my main point. The one responsible for starting it, provided it's relatively clear cut who did, has to bear the responsibility for the resultant horror.

I think, anyway.............

Basically.........yes.  

Again, with as much sympathy and understanding as I can feel, you can't start a fight and then complain about getting hit.

Look, without meaning to ruin my reputation, the NAZIS asked for it.
The Germans didn't, but the NAZIS did.

A.

And V-2's were more accurate?

Quote:


V-2s weren't even meant to be accurate.

Regardless of accuracy or whether the raids were 'military' targetted raids gone awry. It doesn't matter. One or two bad decisions, whether intentional or not cannot be compared to planned 'systematic' murder, terror and destruction of an entire continent for 5 years!

Andrew, as for the distinction between Nazis and Germans. I made the destinction in a codicil to my post (only because I do believe there were at least some people who did not know of the atrocities and who did not actively take part in the usual Nazi type activities).

But take a look at the percentages of vote that the Nazi Party received from the German people in the Thirties! Such high percentages of a vote are pure 'fantasy' to a politician these days (when less than 50% is usually the winners share).

Also, lingering in the same area for a second, I cannot believe that a concentration camp can exist for 3 years, less than two miles from a town of 5000 people, without ANYONE knowing. Especially when the chimneys can be seen from the town, when the trains always seem to go in full but only ever come out empty. Where the stench was horrific for miles before the Allies arrived (but they didn't initially know what it was) and when the guards who work there go home to their families in the town each night!!

I'm sorry. It's impossible! But still, I give the German people as a whole, the benefit of the doubt and understand that 'fear' after they may have realised what had been happening would have been terrible. But, I'm sorry, I don't think , in all fairness, the people of the day (as opposed to todays Germans) can really pretend to be uptight about a couple of air-raids. Nor can the Japanese.

Look, there was one family who went to see the concentration camps after the war finished.
They didnt know.
They went home and hung themselves in shame. now, they voted for Hitler in 1933...but I dont think they voted to exterminate the Jews.

A.

I understand why people would have voted for the Nazis in '33. There really wasn't a viable alternative anyway. (Have a read of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" if you're up to it. A lot of politcal 'lead-up' info - but it is a daunting read).

There is certainly no doubt that Hitler and his government put Germany back on it's feet and made it a far better place to live in and gave her people 'dignity' and purpose again. If only he had just left it at that, he would still be a hero in the eyes of many, including other nations (even though much of what he achieved was due to totally ignoring the Treaty of Verseilles, but that was, IMO a big mistake anyway).

These things had to be stopped and they had to be stopped as soon as possible. And they were. I don't think the methods used to try and stop such horrors as early as possible can be criticised, especially by the Nation who was (be it knowingly or not) responsible for commiting them. 

Mahatma Ghandi and Winston Churchill gave praise to him, but I think his later deeds carried GroB Deutschland idea a lil bit too far...

A.

Quote:

This is the whole point. I don't think that anyone who wasn't there could possibly understand what restoring national pride meant to the average German. The hated Treaty of Versailles was a compromise that was possibly the major cause of WWII. It was more an act of revenge & punishment than a peace settlement & Germany was given no choice. Sign the treaty or be invaded by the Allies. The effect on the economy was so devastating it led to the rise of National Socialism. If it hadn't been Hitler & the Nazis it would have been someone else.

Many people in Europe including important politicians admired Hitler & what he was doing for his country. They might not have known about the terrible things going on but even if they did it might not have made any difference. WWII was not fought to save the Jewish people or anyone else suffering under the Nazi regime. It was declared as a result of Germany invading Poland after all negotiations & diplomacy had failed.

It's very easy to moralise after the event. Many terrible things have been done by my own country which I'm not proud of. One small example: Britain invented the "concentration camp" during the Boer War & many thousands died in them, including women & children. I'm ashamed to admit it & deeply regret it happened but I can't be held responsible for anything done by my ancestors & refuse to apologise for it. By accepting the awful truth I would hope to prevent anything like it happening again. This is by no means certain as the ordinary citizen has very little power to change anything, especially in wartime.

Meanwhile, dictators in many parts of the world treat their own people in a similar, if not worse, manner. The world sits back, wrings its hands & does nothing.

very true, though I'm pleased to say my colony hasnt done anything on the scale of Europe....

A.

There is no country out there that hasn't got blood on its hands - more or less.

Yes, I know all about the Aboriginal wipeouts and the shameful barabarity of those acts, of which I am not proud of, I admit, that post was more of a flak drawing exercise than anything else.
I am regularly shamed in regard to my country's appaling treatment of natives in the past and am deeply sorry for it, but I do stand by the government's position of not apologising as once that happpens the flood gates are open for lawsuits which would effectively bleed (or rather drain) the Federal Treasury dry.

A.

Interesting thread!

Had Germany not started bombing London, Dresden would have never happened! - The Battle of Britain would have been lost and I'd now be German!

Quote:

Maybe I shouldn't comment as I don't know a great deal on the subject. From a distance, & without knowing the full facts, one has to wonder on the real motives behind it. This article might be biased for all I know but if what it says is true I can't see how this could ever be described as being in the "best interests" of the Aboriginal people.
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1998-no-frames/aboriginal-children.htm
Nor can I see how any self-respecting Aboriginal could be expected to acknowledge it.

It's as unfathomable to me as the terrible things done by one race to another throughout history almost anywhere in the world you can think of. The main motive is greed, with the newcomers with their superior technology & weapons grabbing the best land for themselves, by force if necessary. It invariably comes down to force in the end. This is always excused as being in the "best interests" of the indigenous inhabitants & despite their protests. What puzzles me is that the oppressors actually appear to believe this themselves. It seems the white Anglo-Saxon people is responsible for most of these atrocities & we have a great deal to answer for. I would have thought that with its comparatively small population Australia was a big enough country to have more than enough room for everyone.

PS. Quote:

According to the 2001 census the official population of England (with an area of 50,362 sq miles a tiny country compared with the 2,966,200 sq miles of Australia) was 49,138,831.

Hagar, I'm certainly no expert on the issue, but having grown up around these people all my life, I have to say that the article at the end of that link is, like all articles about a 'contoversial' subject, in part right and in part, wrong.

The fundamental reason the Aboriginal children were taken from their parents (and that's the only issue at hand in the 'Stolen Generation' affair), was to protect them from abusive parents and from, what was considered at the time, unwholesome situations. They were, by and large, well cared for, as is evidenced by many of the grown up children today.

However, regardless of the reasons, they shouldn't have been taken without due process and without appeal. That's what was wrong. There were alos many instances of 'misguided relocation' without consideration for their feelings. That's the problem, they TRULY thought that they weren't 'real people'.

There are many aspects of the way in which Aboriginal people were treated, up until quite recently, from a historical point of view, that were terrible and unfair and can only be compared to the sorts of things which have happened in every ostensibly British colony and the United states well after the British left.

But we've tried to put it right, being the fair minded race that we are. However, as usual, we've gone too far the other way and created a situation which can only be called 'reverse dicrimination'. This simply breeds contempt and a sense of unfairness among hard working and honest white people, which goes more towards damaging the Aboriginal cause than helping it.

I get upset when Sharon has to try to find $1000 to pay her University fees each semester (and also gets the statement for her 'deferred study account' with a
balance of $30,000 which she has to pay back when she finally goes back to work), while a ONE EIGHTH caste Aboriginal doesn't pay a red cent. That's just one example of soooooooo many instances of whites paying the toll for the mistakes of their great grand parents.

A far better way would be to simply give them 'EQUAL' rights rather than 'handouts' which only serve in the long run to make them dependant. Even now there are Aboriginals around who feel they shouldn't have to pay for anything. What will they do when the handouts stop?? Because they will, one day.

Like the article, everything has gone too far and the real issues have become lost somewhere in all the  rhetoric.

Thanks Hagar, for the very kind words. As I hope you're aware, I very much value your comments and ideas. We do tend to 'speak the same language' often.

(Now all we have to do is educate the masses.............lol ).

Seriously though, as you say, I think also that the main cause of any type of discrimination is a result of one group believing they are superior to the other, and in some cases, they consider them not to be human.

Again, what is so sad, in their hearts they are genuinely convinced because of generations of people being brought up and taught that this is the 'nature of things'. So, can they really be blamed for believing what has been taught, by word and example, for generations?

Quote:



A valid point ....... for both themes in this thread.