bintananth
behind a desk
"Just following orders" didn't work for Henry Wirz in 1865. He was executed.
It also didn't work for most of the people who were executed after being captured, tried, and convicted after WWII for war crimes.
History Noble Wehrmacht Myth...is it a myth?
- Thread starter Lord Sovereign
- Start date
It also didn't work for most of the people who were executed after being captured, tried, and convicted after WWII for war crimes.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Again the US army had zero lack of food and supplies, the German army invaded Russia to seize the necessary food to survive and keep fighting the war. US abuses of prisoners was specific policy, in the East the Germans had zero help from the Soviet government so couldn't feed theirs. Many more US and British PoWs survived because their governments sent food via the Red Cross.
No, that's just what you want to believe and was the immediate post-war explanation by the Allies because none of the Allied powers wanted to confront their own role in the situation; the British and American blockade starved Europe (which in peacetime had to import food to feed its people, in war those requirements increased due to lower food production), which was in famine since 1940. The Soviets refused to help feed or support their PoWs in any way unlike the WAllies despite being approached by the Germans to do just that. At the warcrimes trials none of the victors wanted to reveal their own crimes and how they contributed to the German ones.
Hitler denied the Red Cross because the Soviets refused to allow the Red Cross into prison camps for Axis prisoners. Why give the Soviets the benefit when they ignored all German offers for both sides to respect the Geneva Convention? Again see the posts I've already made about that subject with sources and the book "Stalin's War" by McMeekin. Why the fuck would the Germans approach the Soviets with the offer to let the Red Cross into their camps if the Soviets did the same if they had no intention of doing so? That Soviets never approached the Germans likewise. They just ignored them and were the ONLY nation in WW2 who refused to work with the Red Cross at all.
The Hunger Plan didn't call for deliberate starvation, it was a memo about the food situation if you actually read the original document, which is online by the way. What it said was Germany would lose the war if they didn't get food from the USSR and if they took enough to meet their needs fully then umpteen millions in the East could potentially starve. It was a warning about what would happen if they took enough food so policy makers could make decisions. Given that the British had categorically refused to negotiate to end the war Hitler decided that they were going to pull the trigger on the invasion of the USSR and seize the food, consequences be damned. Of course then there was little food to seize because the Soviets destroyed it all or took it with them meaning they left their own civilians in occupied territories to starve. So instead Germany had to take some of its seed corn and replant the East, because they had little choice. Ultimately the Germans had to bring food in to prevent food riots, so they didn't even live up to what the 'Hunger Plan' actually said.
Still despite that Ribbentrop approached the Soviets and asked for help feeding the POWs. He was ignored. So there was little they could do to solve the situation, because what food there was was used for civilians.
Which is why I quoted US war crimes in the Pacific, Korean, and Vietnam wars too. You obviously are just not even bothering to read any of the proof that I'm posting. No wonder you refuse to accept reality.
Speaking of scale the Mau Mau rebellion was vastly smaller in scale to the Eastern Front or the scale of organized resistance there.
What's your source on that? The Soviets? The German army (again ARMY) was extremely tough against rape because of the consequences that would result with their relations with the civilian population. The Soviets claimed all sorts of things because they didn't want to confront the fact that their women often willingly formed relationships with German and other Axis soldiers or at least engaged in prostitution, soft or standard. In the West the Allies did much more raping than the Germans did. The Germans didn't need to rape, they had willing women in France and other occupied countries, which is why when the Allies liberated them the local men turned on the women and publicly attacked them. For the German army there was so much free sex going on that the STD problem forced them to institute the brothel system. Now there you do have a crime because women were often forced into working in those and were not treated well...probably is the Allies did the same thing:
U.S. troops used Japan brothels after WWII
Records shows American authorities permitted the "comfort women" system to continue in Japan after World War II.
www.seattletimes.com
American Soldiers Brutally Raped Japanese Women During World War II
"So pervasive was the crime, and so frightened were the people, that hundreds of Okinawa women committed suicide by swallowing poison or by leaping from the steep cliffs of the island."
www.veteranstodayarchives.com
No, you just don't want to accept anything that does against your narrative.
bintananth
behind a desk
Sorry for the snip ...
At the start of WWII antibiotics did not exist. By June 1944 the US had enough penicillin for everyone over and on top of the extremely expensive things like the Atomic Bomb and B-29 ... which weren't yet ready.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Should the people involved in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been prosecuted for war crimes? They did, after all, deliberately mass murder 100,000’s of civilians.
Our government gave half of Europe to the Bolsheviks. That’s pretty bad.
Yeah, and the Germans wouldn't let the UK and US troops share their food with the Russians in the same camp, so it's not like the Russians even could send food.
HAHAHA!!! Not in the east, lol. No, they raped by units. Jewish women would be murdered afterwards.
They would literally brand the women with "Whores for Hitler's troops"
There's an estimate of a million children fathered by German fathers and Soviet mothers.
Estimates range up to 10 million raped.
Importantly, this was basically unwritten policy, as the law was changed to requiring punishment needing to be requested.
My Narrative? Jesus, man, look at the shit you've been wrong about so far.
Deciding to deliberately starve about 20 million people in order to continue a wrong war isn't fine. It's that's an additional atrocity all of it's own.
So either Operation Unthinkable, or the Nazis. What would you have chosen?
Last edited:
Both are better than giving half of Europe to communists.
So you are an idiot for thinking the unthinkable plan could work, and fine with giving all of Europe to communists for the second,= which makes you an awful person as well (which surprises no one on the site, given your support of slavery).
Patton thought it could work, I defer to him and his ideas. I just don’t really see us making a deal with communists as any kind of moral good and it sure doesn’t feel that we really gained much out of winning. Certainly not in the long run with the West hell bent on committing collective suicide not even a century later. Also why is apparently evil to make a deal with one group of communists but totally and perfectly fine to make one with another? Weird narrative.
I just wish we had a future that those Americans who died in World War II would have actually been proud of, rather than one that would have made them turn the boats around on D-Day.
Last edited:
It's looking soberly at 3 bad options, and taking the one that saves half of Europe. There's a good chance we lose such a fight.
“Saves”. It ended up pretty much dying anyways in part to KGB operations and those who took them up, as well as much of the winners simply just selling out their nations. I don’t think many soldiers would have wanted this future where cities get burned to the ground in the name of black racial idolatry, homosexuals being married and treated as if they are somehow equal, trans youth and otherwise glorifying mental illness, most of America being fat and lazy, many times as many infants sacrificed and murdered in the name of womens rights as there were deaths in the Holocaust, borders being violated entirely, Christianity dying, freedoms given up in the name of a virus that wasn’t remotely dangerous, and their race otherwise being replaced in their own homeland. Much of this was set in motion post World War II and how it ended. We ended up with a nation at least as evil and far less respectable than the one they fought against. Much better to have tried to kill the Soviets when they had the chance.
sillygoose
Well-known member
How are those two things remotely related? The Russian government refused to send food despite the German request. Since they banned the Germans sending food or packages to their own PoWs or let the Red Cross inspect prison camps the Germans decided turnabout was fair play.
Source? I mean a non-Soviet based one. After all they tried to blame the Germans for Katyn at Nuremberg.
Again per the Soviets, who lied about everything, including pinning the Katyn massacre on the Germans. They also tried to say any mass grave found in the USSR was the Nazis, not good old uncle Joe.
Not to mention how they still completely deny all the mass rapes they did throughout Europe, including of Auschwitz survivors and their own people in forced labor in Germany.
Or 'academics' wildly misreading the German documents (one of the sources mentioned in your wikipedia article), who interpreted any child born of a German father to be a rape-baby. That's where the silly '10 million rapes' estimate comes from:
There's your problem right there, feminist 'estimates'. Like how they claim America today is a rape culture and women fear walking outdoors every second.
Oh how convenient. Something that can be asserted without evidence then.
When it happened like the Americans they simply put the guilty back into combat where they were likely killed. Why give someone a prison sentence or shoot them when they could be useful in combat?
All sourced unlike you.
You're right the British were extremely fucked up to blockade Europe and refuse to negotiate to end the war until after the entire thing was ashes.
bintananth
behind a desk
Maybe ...
If the people who ordered and carried out the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo also get prosecuted, I'd say yes.
Those two were actually worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They didn't change the rules, they legitimately clarified a grey area which wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions. This was also a legal status change that meant that *in theory* German prisoners no longer had the legal rights offered to POWs, but *in practice* no, the United States certainly didn't actually starve prisoners. Rations were cut back at several points, but never to the point of actual starvation, and even at the worst times, German prisoners in the United States were better off than Germans in Germany, both during and after the war.
This is completely different than the Germans being well-documented as starving bona fide Soviet POWs due to their racist ideology about Slavs.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Calling PoWs 'disarmed enemy personnel' is gaming the rules to get around the rules. You can't unilaterally change the status of captured troops to avoid treating them as prisoners under the convention, but the Allies didn't care about the rules because they had won and no one could challenge them.
Are you talking about the PoWs in the US or in Europe? I'm talking about the ones in Europe. They were actually starved and many died. How many we don't actually know because the records were very obviously extremely low guestimates.
The PoWs in the US were treated well until the war was over and then things got tough, but never as tough as in Europe.
The Germans didn't have food for the Soviets, which is why they starved. See "Stalin's War" by McMeekin. The Germans tried to get help from the Soviets to feed them but were ignored. The Allies after the war pushed the narrative that it was deliberate to cover up how it was a combo of Soviet refusal to help and the Wallies maintaining a starvation blockade on Europe that caused the problem. Same way they tried to pin Katyn on the Germans, but they couldn't fabricate convincing enough evidence and the Poles in exile knew otherwise and wouldn't let the Soviets get away with it. Plus then the Cold War happened so it became useful propaganda. The Soviet PoWs and food situation wasn't because it would reveal the role Allied blockade policy played in all sorts of Nazi crimes.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Noble military is a myth. Total war pretty much destroys psychological barriers to a lot of terrible behavior. Even US soldiers, who had not experienced the full horror of World War II, raped women in France. Now consider that three quarters of Wehrmacht were fighting against the Soviet Union, who they knew was under Communist rule, and knew that even if it hadn't wanted to invade Europe before, it certainly would now. Laws of war were largely respected in the West. Eastern Front? Both sides said, "thank you, no, thank you" and proceeded to beat each other silly (much like the war in Yugoslavia).
Soviets need american trucks and trains to advance - in war they would fight against USA.
Soviets air forces was joke unable to stop german Ju87 from bomb them during day in 1945,when they have 10:1 numerical advantage.
Soviets take 50% of oil from Baku,which would burn first day of war,and rest from few more which would burn in few weeks.
Soviets have no defense against night bombers
soviets were hated by poles,hungarian and other occupied nations.
soviet soldiers from kolchoz waited for anybody who gave them their land back.
So,if Allies started war,soviet would fall in months.Patton wonted war,becouse he saw soviets as monsters they were,and knew,that he and his boys would defeat them quickly.
But,Democrats choosed to gave Europe to soviets for free.Idiots.If you betray allies,you must take something for that.
Last edited:
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Not to be philosophical or anything, but war is just a bit shit isn't it?
That,and it unmask people - showing what really they have in their hearts.Not nice thing to see.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Yes. But also, as @ATP had said, war unmasks people. It is a saying that war brings out both the best and the worst in people, and that is pretty much true. In war, human heart is laid open for all to see - and it is an ugly thing indeed, as Millenium Earl had said:
| It's so ugly isn't it? This symbolizes a person suffering in their heart. You think an akuma is simply a weapon I create but an akuma is made from a person's heart. |