Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[FPSOlkor]

Originally Posted by swiss

If they were just falling back to recollect - ok.

But it's may '45: they were already defeated, no danger coming from them, just running to surrender to the Americans rather than to the Red Army.

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

Starting from the moment when capitulation was signed ALL German units were ORDERED to stop fighting and stay where they were/ If they DISOBEYEDORDER they were legitimate target. Example from the West - U-boat, whichwere hunted for for at least a month after hostilities ended.

swiss, I see your point man, but we give our judgements in hindsight, these young guys back in those days had to deal with some seriously bad $hit..

Not to mention that the Germans weren't exactly a lovely peaceful buch during the war, were they?

[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.

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

[swiss]

As Pilot best option was to get shot down over, or lost in Switzerland.

We detained them in hotels in Bernese Alps.

[Avimimus]

Canadian soldiers also "took no prisoners" on several occasions (including near the end of the war). Such war crimes are often committed by soldiers with limited combat experience, however, there also seems to be a rule that soldiers from any country will tend to commit atrocities if the war goes on long enough (and their superiors/home country tolerates the crimes). Instead of allowing crimes to take place or not punishing them, there are also cases where warcrimes are part of a strategic choice. Given the right 'logic' and public indifference or support conscious policies to target civilians are also possible in many more societies than we'd like to pretend (eg. Canadian's firebombing Germany, NATO strategic nuclear arms).

It should be said that this in no way removes the burden from any country that committed atrocities, or failed to prevent or prosecute those committing atrocities. The disturbing thing about some of the killings of civilians that have come to light recently (Iraq, Afghanistan) is that the public has been 'prepared' enough not to be shocked and there is a growing sense that such crimes are "worth overlooking" for the greater cause.

In the case of Germany there was something unusual which was politically and culturally very deeply wrong - German troops committed atrocities against Italian civilians and even German civilians by the end of the war (althoguh, the scale of these atrocities is much less than those committed on the eastern front, in Warsaw or in the former Yugoslavia).

The point I'm making, is simply that all societies - to a greater or lesser degree - are capable of creating these types of situations or atrocities and that it is our responsibility - each single person in each country in the world - to ensure that:
- they are remembered
- that they are never condoned or minimised
- that we create a world where they are not possible

We are all responsible - not Stalin or Hitler or 'bomber' Harris or the Joint Chiefs - not a few 'bad apples' in the lower ranks - not the fact that the other side committed atrocities first or refuses to follow the 'rules' or the brutality of war itself.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think Avinimus summed it up quite nicely.

The moment i think i'm above the law, or even common sense as to what constitutes basic human rights, is the moment i justify my opponents to use the same methods against me

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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

With regard to the German attitude to the Soviets there are a number of factors here but three stand out:

- British and US soldiers (aside from African Americans) were seen by Germans as racially advanced whereas the Slavic races were regarded as "under races".
- Britain, US and German all had signed the Geneva Convention,. Russia had not. this gave the German's a loophole to ignore the Geneva Convention with Russian troops.
- Wehrmacht troops committed war crimes but SS divisions were far worse

In terms of the Pacific war there was a huge difference between Japanese Navy personnel and Japanese army. The Japanese Navy was very professional, treated prisoners with respect and in fact often tried to avoid handing POW's over to the Japanese army as they knew they were being systematically abused.

Australians, traditionally quite fearless and ruthless, tended to not take prisoners at all and not accept surrender in the field killing them immediatley. However once they got stuck with a prisoner they usually treated them well.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Canadian soldiers also "took no prisoners" on several occasions (including near the end of the war). Such war crimes are often committed by soldiers with limited combat experience, however, there also seems to be a rule that soldiers from any country will tend to commit atrocities if the war goes on long enough (and their superiors/home country tolerates the crimes). Instead of allowing crimes to take place or not punishing them, there are also cases where warcrimes are part of a strategic choice. Given the right 'logic' and public indifference or support conscious policies to target civilians are also possible in many more societies than we'd like to pretend (eg. Canadian's firebombing Germany, NATO strategic nuclear arms).

It should be said that this in no way removes the burden from any country that committed atrocities, or failed to prevent or prosecute those committing atrocities. The disturbing thing about some of the killings of civilians that have come to light recently (Iraq, Afghanistan) is that the public has been 'prepared' enough not to be shocked and there is a growing sense that such crimes are "worth overlooking" for the greater cause.

In the case of Germany there was something unusual which was politically and culturally very deeply wrong - German troops committed atrocities against Italian civilians and even German civilians by the end of the war (althoguh, the scale of these atrocities is much less than those committed on the eastern front, in Warsaw or in the former Yugoslavia).

The point I'm making, is simply that all societies - to a greater or lesser degree - are capable of creating these types of situations or atrocities and that it is our responsibility - each single person in each country in the world - to ensure that:
- they are remembered
- that they are never condoned or minimised
- that we create a world where they are not possible

We are all responsible - not Stalin or Hitler or 'bomber' Harris or the Joint Chiefs - not a few 'bad apples' in the lower ranks - not the fact that the other side committed atrocities first or refuses to follow the 'rules' or the brutality of war itself.

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter