A new openness to discussing Allied war crimes in WWII: "We didn't take prisoners"

It was the first crime William E. Jones had ever committed: The 4th Infantry Division had seized a small hill and the GIs lost all self-control: "The Germans were baffled... We didn't take prisoners and there was nothing to do but kill them." While researching for his book "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy," Antony Beevor learned that Allied soldiers committed war crimes in Normandy to a much greater extent than was thought. American, British and Canadian troops killed German POWs and wounded soldiers, and used Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers as human shields and forced them to walk through minefields.

The Horror of D-Day: A New Openness to Discussing Allied War Crimes in WWII - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

Information about allied murder of Germans soldiers surrendering or who had surrendered has always been out there. It is the hypocritical nature of the allies to point fingers to the Germans accusing them of being the only ones who conducted themselves in such a manner is what rankles me. In my grandfather's journal, entries were made of such incidences right after the D-Day invasion. I can understand soldiers losing it after seeing the horrors found at the concentration camps or even retaliation. I believe it is the manner used to motivate the allied troops prior to the invasion (a good german is a dead german) contributed to these acts. The allies just went ahead pointed fingers. War is hell and excesses do happen. Don't know who started it during the invasion but both sides did partake.

 

Maybe Germany shouldn't have unleashed the dogs of war then.

 

It's been talked about for years - even depicted in some movies. I recall a scene ('The Longest Day'??) where an American shot some surrendering German soldiers and then turned to his buddy and asked "What does 'bitte, bitte ' ('please, please..') mean?"

There was another recent film (SPR.... BoB???) where, after shooting some German soldiers with their hands up, the American turns around, holds up his hands and mockingly says "Look..... I washed my hands!"

Those are just two instances, but 'The Longest Day' was released 48 years ago, and was a mainstream movie.

-whatever

-Lou

 

About time, we cant refer to ourselves as sent by god and all that other idiocracy forever.

 

No, but we can talk of crimes in relative terms, nu?

 

Of course, why not?

 

I welcome more discussion of such things.
But I'll remain suspicious of where much of the motivation for 'debate' on these issues has sprung from over recent years.

Despite the fact that, naturally, armies of the size that fought in WW2 all threw up their unpleasant incidents; the important truth of the leading axis powers having atrocity built in as a normal & natural part of much of their their ideology & doctrine, is hopefully not to be idly discarded.

 

I pretty much agree as well. However I can think of at least 3 incidents where what might be considered mass murder of POW took place by US troops. 2 were on the same day in Italy or Sicily and the perpetraters were convicted and sentenced by US Courts Martial for their crimes. The other was in the liberation of Dachau. Not only were there very extenuating circumstances in the latter but I beleive administrative action was taken, the incident was investigate, and a court martial was considered but Patton decided not to go forward with it. There is another thread on this particular incident.

 

Maybe Hitler said it best, one time he said something in the line of history would prove the victors of the war right, whoever they were.

 

Nor would I, put much thought or faith in Hitler's Analysis of History. But if he, Adolphe did make
that statement "history would prove the victors of the war right, whoever they were." He was Right
he was completely wrong and responsible for the War. And last I checked History has already proven
that assessment. Hitler was a Certified Wake-Job, Muchoo Locoooo!

 

I do not argue that it severely, but it is war! Fascists could scoff at captured soldiers severely. And at present to send on mines of captured German the soldier was the most good variant.

 

A crime against humanity is just that no matter who commits it. Whether it was a matter of state policy is a concideration to be taken in the level of punishment handed out to the various accused. When a leading military figure devises a different way to kill en masse because his soldiers doing the dirty work can't handle the mental stress of dealing with shooting individuals, or machinegunning groups while knee deep in the pile of dead, this is beyond the realm of sane men overcome by the moment of war. I would be hard pressed to accuse a man German or otherwise of shooting a surrendering foe after he just shot his friend in battle. That is probably wrong of me to make that conclusion, none the less, I'm human and therefore tend to judge on a scale of degree as opposed to it was right or wrong. We humans are like that!

 

As someone who has never experienced battle, I have no idea how to judge some of these "war crimes" committed by our own soldiers. I don't even think I have the right to.

Kind of interesting how this topic is now being discussed as there is aparently a proposal for the US military to make a medal for "curageous restraint".