What is it with people wanting to serve in the Schutzstaffel?

Well, the reason that the SS committed so much more atrocities is actually probably due to the reason that Hitler sanctioned such actions, and immediately pardoned all such crimes.

It is inaccurate to say that German troops are any worse than British or American men. There were probably just as twisted people in Allied ranks, but, unlike their German counterparts, were never grouped together an given permission to start mass killings.

 

Tell us how you REALLY feel Jugs, and don't hold back....

 

I think that is certainly a great point, the SS were allowed to do it. That would also explain why only the officers of the SS got severe sentences after the war compared to the soldier who was "just doing his job" whether it was morally right or not. Especially within the German army with the threat of retaliation against your family, whether it be a firing squad or perhaps a visit from the Gestapo.

I have certainly heard stories of Allied troops doing cruel and inhumane things to both the German and Japanese soldiers because the had heard what the axis troops were doing. I mean you could even argue that the A bomb being dropped on the Japanese cities was just as inhumane as an SS company burning a French village. They both targeted and killed civilians.

 

You could argue that but you would be argueing from a fallacious premise. The A bombs were aimed at military targets. As opposed to the actions of the SS.

 

Yes, however they targeted them knowing that the civilians were going to take the full brunt of the effect of the bomb, you don't think that it is the same since they both are directly aimed at civilians?

You do have a point that the bombs were not designed to kill the civilians but they still were acceptable casualties to the Allies is that any different to the Germans using terror bombing on European cities?

Certain SS units did intentionally go out to destroy villages for reprisals for partisan activities or whatever and no one has the right to defend them, but I don't think there is much difference between the A bombs being dropped and the SS destroying villages.

What are the difference in statistics between the two, who caused the most civilian casualties?

 

No because they weren't. The rules of warfare at the time recognized this.

This is a different matter. I believe most of the German attacks on cities in Europe were also aimed at military targets. Were any convicted post war for war crimes in this regard?

One is allowed by the rules of warfare and the other isn't (actually at the time the other was if you followed the rules - the Germans didn't bother). You simply can't allow your opponent to use human shields to protect his war industries or military. Attacking war industries and military targets is a lot different than just murdering civilians because you lost some troops in the area.

Irrelevant.

 

So if the German SS murdered 100 civilians due to partisans activity it is in no way relevant to the Allies killing 100,000 in an attack that they know they would cause those figures? I still think it is the same.

Rotterdam, Stalingrad, London all were terror bombing who target industrial areas in the cities yet the Germans were hated for doing this because it also targeted civilian buildings just like the A bomb. At the time I believe it was not considered a war crime.

 

So if the German SS murdered 100 civilians due to partisans activity it is in no way relevant to the Allies killing 100,000 in an attack that they know they would cause those figures? I still think it is the same.

Tomcat, one was revenge, one was planned to end the whole war.

 

One thing that comes to mind in Mil-Civ is when the Allies burned Eindhoven, what was their reasoning? To eliminate the German garrison which was so small in number they could hardly man flak let alone resist paratroops.


This is somewhat like that Paratroops vs Cretan civvies thread.
Say you are a rifleman stationed around a French town. Late at night your barracks get shot up by resistance members and ten of your comrades die. What do you do? The same to them, go to the village and light the buildings on fire and shoot up the place after all they just took away those close to you right?

But sure, some have the thinking that they should simply investigate. What good would that do? The resistance would be gone long before you find them.

But some support the idea of using incendiary bombs in a dense city filled with scarcely few military targets. But hey there are Germans there right?

 

It certainly takes a bigger moral lapse to personally execute civilians into ditches and buildings rather than to impersonally fly over cities and drop bombs from far above.

 

Carpet bombing has always been controversial, as with the A-bomb. Really, the rationalization of it is that doing so will not only hamper industrial production but make the overall enemy morale dip. Both morale boosts and morale dips are results of carpet bombing, which also shows its limited usefulness.

The gist of it is that carpet bombing has some, even if quite little, military application. Murdering a rural village of harmless people does not. Now, some might say, what about poison gas? That has military application.

My belief is that carpet bombing is allowed, and poison gas and the A-bomb were no-no's is because, carpet bombing also requires a deadly cost to the attacker, due to enemy fighters, and AA guns. Poison gas and nuclear weapons are relatively risk-free to the attacker, causing a horrifically slanted casualty ratio. As a result, they are banned.

But we should probably get back on topic.

 

The SS generally justified civilian mass murder as "anti-terrorist" local pacification measures. Himmler's orders sometimes had the quote "wave of fear and terror"...

 

Yes, the "to a-bomb or not to a-bomb" thing has been discussed in detail in other threads, that were soon thereafter locked. Nothing was solved in those discussions either.

 

I don't see how that makes it alright though.

I think everyone has valid points in this thread, to with morality of both SS 'tactics' and the dropping of the A bomb, I think what we have solved here is that you can not quickly judge the Germans for there tactics especially when the allies so similar ones.

But if the roles were reversed the Allied troops would certainly pursue the German partisans with the same ruthlessness as the Nazi SS, probably not with the same outcomes such as the firing squads and what not, but they would certainly not go easy on them especially if they are caught them using German weapons which could make them 'spies' and liable to be shot which ultimately ends up as the same outcome as the historically history.

Just another view on it.

 

When I said that nothing was solved in the other threads, I meant that no participant changed their orignial views, and it got ugly, then it got shut down. When it got to the point where nothing new was brought to the table, it turned into a mess. We can't quit.

 

This one is slightly different since we are comparing the A bomb 'tactic' to the SS 'tactics' of winning battles, and I think this has stayed very civil and controlled by everyone involved. A simple exchange of views and opinions so likes by others some not so liked, but no neo nazis here.. (well yet.)

 

But that really is one of the key differences. The A bomb was used to help end the war and was done so within the rules of war at the time. The SS atrocities mentioned had nothing to do with winning a battle and were specifically outlawed (at least as the SS performed them) by the rules of war at the time.

 

I agree, the targets in Japan were far from "innocent civilian" filled cities. From the time of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Imperial Headquarters, the command center for the war, and the new Military Preparatory School were all established in Hiroshima. This gave its Ujina Harbor a distinctly military tone for the first time. Each time Japan became involved in any military action in Asia; Hiroshima was the base for education of officers, training, assembly and dispatching of troops. As years went by, Hiroshima's military facilities only grew more numerous and substantial.

By 1945 Hiroshima held these "purely innocent civilian" installations; the 2nd General Army Headquarters, Chugoku Military District Headquarters, and it was always the home of the 5th Division (participated in the Nanking occupation ["rape of"] 1937), 59th Military Headquarters, 224th Division marshaling/training area, the 154th Division training area, the Marine Transport Headquarters, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industry yards, and the Ujina Harbor Kawasaki yards.

Yup, nothing but innocent "civilians" living there. BTW, everybody in the west who cared knew of the Nanking atrocities and which division was involved, since this was the same time and place where the river-gunboat USS Panay was attacked and sunk.

From the beginning of the Showa (Hirohito) period through World War II, over 50 % of the all the commercial ships were built in Nagasaki. As to "warships" produced there, one might be enlightened to trace the origin of the warships; "Hyuga", "Kirishima", and the Super Battleship "Musashi", the auxiliary carriers; "Hiyo", "Junyo", the design built carriers; "Chuyo", "Unyo", "Taiyo", "Kaiyo"," Amagi", "Kasagi", or the cruisers "Sendai", "Natori", "Kiso", "Tama", "Furutaka", "Aoba", "Haguro", "Chokai", "Mikuma", "Tone", "Chikuma", and the destroyers.

Wow, the destroyers produced there are too numerous to even consider putting on here. Also Nagasaki was the headquarters of the Kyushu Island defense forces, and Nagasaki was also the home to the Nagasaki Steel Works, Mitsubishi Electric Works, Mitsubishi Munitions plants, and was far from another "innocent civilian" port city full of fishermen and their families!

The announcement by Truman that "we" had harnessed the power of the sun (incorrectly stated), and turned it into a weapon made the Imperial Japanese truly question the "correctness" of their past positions and view of the universe. If the people of the nation of the Rising Sun, ruled by a "Son of the Goddess of the Sun" could be subjected to the "power of the sun", then their entire concept of themselves, and their place in the universe needed to be re-evaluated.

The Japanese could and did fight fires, bombs, bullets, and other people landing on their shores. They had done it successfully for thousands of years. They could not and did not fight "nature"; earthquakes, tsunamis, floods or famines were to be accepted, endured and rebuilt after they passed, not fought. That "nature" itself, especially that of the sun had been turned against them was startling.

The difference between death by firestorm or death by atomic blast is rather interesting (sarcasm). The effects of radiation were not fully understood in the aftermath of an explosion, and the original "blast" would kill in a nanosecond. A firestorm could actually suck up and use the oxygen and suffocate the victims (if they were underground in a shelter). It could generate "hurricane" force winds which would drag humans screaming into its vortex. I wonder how horrendous those last moments were?

The use of the atomics is not a comparable "tactic" to the SS "tactic" of torching towns, villages, hamlets, homes, and churches. The dropping of the atomics was anticipated as a "war ending" operation.

 

Red light. Red light.

Different as this may be, it still boils down the whether or not the A-bomb was moral. We should all proceed as if we are walking on glass. We kind of are. I'm just going to say I agree with Mr. Clint.

 

You are right, so far so good. Hopefully it will stay that way.