Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Well, Red Army had a "slight" problem when approaching Germany and Berlin. Ilya Ehrenburg's speeches and the propaganda had driven the soldiers to a frenzy "to kill the nazis in their wombs, in their nest..kill them all, show no mercy, strike them down"..This worked fine when the war was not going well, troops rallied but closer to Germany how to restrain them anymore? They should come as a glorious Red Army, liberators of nazism brining freedom to the oppressed proletariat of Europe. So no wonder when reports of Red Army's acts on first German towns occupied reached civilians and soldiers = to west no matter what.

Rapes and other crimes were done by ALL sides of war, not just Germans. So no-one can sit on the high horse of morality and justify their acts. War is hell but no-one is clean.

AFAIK mass rapes were done by the Algerians/Moroccans advancing in Italy and the Russians in Berlin, but I'm open to hear about other cases.

[Splitter]

I understand the thought process of not shooting an enemy in the back, but the reality is that retreat is not surrender. Retreat is often characterized as a strategic withdrawal. The common soldiers did not know when the war was going to end. News was often conflicting or non-existent. So unless the other guy is surrendering, he is still an enemy.

Even surrender is not always surrender. There were more than a few instances of soldiers, especially in the Pacific, who came out under white flags with grenades or guns looking to take down a few conquerors with them.

Add to all of that the fact that the German and Russians fought a brutal war against one another. There was often no quarter given and none accepted. There was a good chance that capture meant death so soldiers fought desperately.

Crimes happened on all sides, they always do. But in some cases those crimes were common, in others they were the anomaly. We all know of instances like the Rape of Nanking where such "crimes" were the policy. However, to show all sides being equal, people like to focus on other incidents committed by one or a small number of soldiers. All things were not, in fact, equal.

Just think about it this way: you are an enemy soldier in WWII, to which countries would you rather surrender? We know who treated their prisoners "well" and who treated them brutally as policy, don't we?

Some of it depends on which country you were fighting for. Germany tended to treat British and American prisoners reasonably well and vice versa. Then again, there seemed to be a special hatred between German and Russian troops and neither side had a good track record of treating the other's prisoners very well.

Splitter

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by swiss

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.


Cheers!

[dduff442]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.


Cheers!

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by dduff442

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

Never heard of it - but Prussian allegiance is legendary, and that means to the last man.
Got any links?

Setting aside "cheese-eating"

Actually it's "frog-eating".



sidenote:

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by swiss

Actually it's "frog-eating".



sidenote:

The Americans were just upset that Saddam started to sell his oil in the late 90's through French interests for Euros rather than US Dollars

Truth be known its probably the REAL reason behind the Iraq War

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by dduff442

A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other.

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

[dduff442]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

I understand this is sometimes correct and that opinion is divided about Moscow '41. The broader context needs be taken into account as well, however.

Hitler was given repeated warnings by his Marshals that, in spite of the fact that they were still moving forward, thing's had already changed from dangerous to critical in the weeks before the launch of the Soviet counter-offensive. It was Hitler's idea to keep pressing on to the point where the German forces were obviously over-exposed and logistics had broken down.

As with Napoleon Hitler had plenty of supplies, including winter clothing -- hundreds of miles away in Poland.

1941 was the year when Hitler's megalomania reached full bloom. In March '42, Goebbels recorded in his diary Hitler's remark that if it wasn't for his "iron will" the front could easily have fallen apart -- not only was their no contrition for his contribution to the disaster, one from which the German army would never fully recover, the Grofaz who had never once visited the front accorded his own determination primary credit for stabilising matters from the comfort of his Berlin chancellry almost a thousand miles away.

For the '42 campaign, army groups Center and North were enfeebled. Their infantry divisions were well below strength and stripped of motor transport and many new recruits inadequately trained. Their tank and motorised divisions had been 'de-motorised', i.e. their support and logistical arms had their motor transport taken away so that they no longer possessed operational mobility. Only AG South had been restored near to full strength.

I'm insufficiently familiar with matters to assess the correctness of the "stand or die" order. It can't be viewed in isolation, however. The gross errors by the General Staff and by Hitler that lead to it must be taken into account.

dduff