execution of ss soldiers at dachau...

men of I company had no problem in shooting ss pow's,did it happen without question or trial? I mean! if you were dressed in ss uniform were you just guilty? and taken and shot full stop!



Dachau Massacre - Waffen-SS soldiers executed by I Company, 157th Regiment, 45th Thunderbird Division

 

I believe it is a little more complex than " if you were dressed in an SS uniform you were guilty and taken and shot"
During the Battle of the Buldge, Col Peiper and his SS troops killed 365 US Pow's and 111 civilians because they did not want to be slowed down or have their fighting strength diminished by assigning personell to guard prisoners. Word got out to US and British troops. Needless to say it upset the US and British troops to hear such news..
When the allied troops liberated Dachau/Austwich one of the death camps, needless to say they were in shock and emotionally drained by the experience. The Allied troops enlisted the aid of those prisoners who were capable of carrying a weapon to guard the German prisoners. There were about 1000 German troops still remaining during the liberation. Some surrendered and some were shot while trying to surrender. Some were even shot after it was clear that they had surrendered. Some were shot by prisoners with weapons as retaliation for the brutality that they had endured. One prisoner reportedly beheaded a german or a Kapo with a bayonet, nobody stopped him. In the words of Dr. Viktor Frankl who survived the death camps and became a renouned Psychiatrist, " an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is not abnormal.' Dr. Frankl did not address legality or morality in his assessment of reactions to abnormal situations.""The investigation resulted in the U.S. Military considering the court-martialling of those involved including the Battalion commander Lt. Col. Felix Sparks, while Col. Howard Buechner was cited in the report for dereliction of duty for not giving the wounded SS men in the coal yard medical aid,[5] but as General Patton, the recently appointed military governor of Bavaria, chose to dismiss the charges, the witnesses to the massacre were never cross examined in court." Wikipedia"
Personally, I object to the mistreatment of prisoners under any circumstances. Physical or mentally. Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay make me want to puke ! We as American fighting me are supposed to be better than that! But that is just me. Please remember war makes good men better and bad men worse. From " The Killer Angel "

 

LTC Sparks' account of the Liberation of Dachau:

Dachau

Dachau massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

Seventh Army Pamphlet on Dachau:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-...OT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=2858&filename=2847.pdf


Dave

 

i dont know if anyone has seen these yet, but they make for intresting watching on this subject...

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 1/8 (1945)

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 2/8 (1945)

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 3/8 (1945)

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 4/8 (1945)

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 5/8 (1945)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVbhK065Ps

YouTube - WWII - Nazi Concentration Camps 7/8 (1945)

YouTube - WWII - Prelude to War 8/8 (1943)

 

Two of my friends had relatives who served in the 45th saw Dachau and neither veterans made it a secret that they stopped taking prisoners thereafter. At the time of its liberation, Dachau was a horrific sight to behold. Corpses were lying in mounds of rotting flesh; most of the SS men found in the camp were not acting as combat troops but as camp guards who did not expect the 45th to take their position so quickly. The situation at the camp was a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse. Just let me say that many deeds committed in that war were illegal and deserving of punishment, but weren't.

 

thanks triple c,can understand that position..

 

Since I found the Thread why make another one. Today in WWII History on April 29th 1945 marks the anniversary of the Dachau Massacre and the Liberation by US Troops of the Dachau Concentration Camp.

According to the testimony of a German survivor and others, those only wounded were given razor blades by US medics to "finish themselves off". After killing the German prisoners, the US soldiers gave weapons to the now liberated inmates, and it has been claimed by witnesses that they tortured and killed an estimated 40 more German soldiers, either guard-staff or those ordered out of the hospital. The same witnesses claim that many of the soldiers killed by the inmates were beaten to death with shovels and other tools.

Lt. Col. Joseph Whitaker, the Seventh Army's Assistant Inspector General, was subsequently ordered to investigate after witnesses came forward testifying about the massacre. The soldiers involved in shooting the POWs were court-martialed. However, General Patton ordered that they receive no further punishment. Many of the documents and name tags of the German POWs were subsequently lost or destroyed and the bodies buried in unmarked mass graves. Because of this it has been impossible to determine the exact number of German POWs murdered that day.

Dachau massacre at AllExperts

Witness Testimony

Dachau

[SIZE=+2]DACHAU AND IT'S LIBERATION [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Personal account by Felix L. Sparks Brigadier General.[/SIZE]

DACHAU AND IT'S LIBERATION: Personal account by Felix L. Sparks Brigadier General, AUS (Retired)

Dachau Picture: U.S. Army Soldiers Executing Camp Guards



(Picture from National Archives, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives.)

U.S. Army soldiers execute camp guards following the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp. (April 29, 1945)

Looks like 100++ on that pile
​

 

As horrible as it may seem, I can totally relate to actions of US soldiers.

If I went thru D Day, Western Europe advancement and found this....I would've probably done worse.

no one, absolutely NO ONE can even remotely comprehend the state of mind of these soldiers.

My heart goes out to them ALL.

 

Whats the problem with killing them on the spot? The Nazi troops were had no qualms about murdering and torturing unarmed civilians. Are we supposed to get upset about these "poor misunderstood civilized soldiers who really wouldnt hurt a flea"?

Call it payback and the Germans should consider themselves lucky for what little was done to them after the war.

 

I fully understand the US soldiers reactions.

I also fully understand being a nation of laws, and military laws (served under them).

To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." In the crucible of hell, those troops became that which they had fought.

 

I also do fully understand the state of mind of many Soldiers, Axis or Allied, as to the reactions one can take during War or conflict. The frame of mind one develops after seeing that type of horrific human suffering and destruction, one tends to forget right from wrong, and just sees Payback. It's also true that some are just born Evil and have no conscience and aren't even worthy of being called human. I'm Sure those Guards of the concentration camp could of said No I will have no Part in This and just walked away. Just Like Patton threatened to shoot one of his soldiers because he refused to fight after he was suffering from Battle fatigue.

"We have met the Enemy, and he is Us" a great quote indeed, sometimes Nations Laws or military laws are dismissed by individuals trying to seek personal justified restitution, that would other wise not even think of killing someone since War has a way of bringing out the worst in individuals.

Like Jesus stated let those that have never committed a sin cast the first stone. War crimes where committed by all sides in WWII, nor can you justify them, regrettably they just happened and one has to live with it and develop a stiff upper lip.

I was asked a question once by Member ICCI, I respond by telling him If I knew by torturing or killing one person it would save the lives of thousand I would probably do it, "With extreme prejudice." Would I be able to justify it? Never!

War is Hell!

 

Well I guess you never read after the Russians set up House in Germany what happened to SOOOOOOoooooooooooo Many Germans.

 

Justified or not in the minds of the perpetrators, it still does not alter the fact that this sort of behaviour is exactly what these professionals were in Germany to prevent.

It is exactly this kind of mentality that causes soldiers to act in a disgraceful manner towards civilians. Like it or not, we as Allies were there to show the German people that this form of behaviour is NOT acceptable. They are supposed to be DISCIPLINED professionals, not just a rabble in uniform dispensing frontier justice at their whim.

Whether the victims are guards at a camp, or factory workers turning out products that support the army,(equally as culpable), this is NOT TO BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Shame....Two wrongs not making a right and all that...

 

More phony moraliity. War is killing people en masse. Why are is itsome kill some people and not others? Morally speaking, differentiation is absurd because ALL LIFE has value. You cannot differentiate between child or adult without compromising yourself morally.Both are flesh and blood with personalities, hopes,and loved ones.

Life is precious no matter who it is. When you go to war you have made the conscious decision to make a second wrong to correct the first one SO yes, two wrongs do make a right in the instance of WWII.

Laws of war are asinine on their face. War is an act of incredible violence on a large scale. Why we think we can mitigate the criminality of it by establishing "rules" as if it is a game is beyond me.

Humans are odd creatures. Only they could invent rules for a horribly wicked, chaotic thing as war. It's like trying to lasso a tornado. It simply cannot be done.

These soldiers were actors in an already morally debased situation. Railing against a crime within a large crime makes no sense to me.

I pity all who die in war because war is such an absolutely preventable catastrophy.This wasn't a tsunami or earthquake, this was a widespread devastation wrought by the conscious decisions of human beings.How utterly sickening.

 

I don't think our Armed services were created to perpetrate acts like this one, however justified they may be.

I am proud of my country, (England), and I don't want to feel that the ambassadors for it are slurring the names of the people they represent...US.

I realise that warfare is cruel, hell, whatever label you put on it. But, the Armed services are servants of THE PEOPLE, empowered by their representatives, and acting FOR the people.

What if even one of these guards at Dachau were conscripts, put there not of their own choosing? Wouldn't imprisonment and trial be a much better way of solving that dilemma alone?

I would hate to think that our eight year struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan is being carried forward by national representatives that carry on like a bunch of cow-pokes in Dodge City. I would like to think they had discipline, pride and justice in mind when they are asked to pull the trigger.

Anything like the above is a uniformed rabble, and I would sincerely hope the armed services of my country, at least, are not trained to perpetrate acts like this one.

Call me naive and laugh if you will, but I stand by what I say here. Nothing wrong with taking the high ground, morally speaking. It's a good position to defend, and the downhill approach for a possible attack means I've chosen a sound location.

Following the law does not mean that the moment the authorities turn their back that we go about our business as we please. It means you "do the right f#@%ing thing"!!!!

 

Just reading your post again, if we had no rules for conflict, and truly anything goes, then the Nuremburg Trials for Crimes against humanity were a complete and utter waste of time and space.

No rules for war means that you can have leadership, (Like Adolf Hitler) doing something in wartime that he percieves to be in the national interest, (Holocaust) and having no recriminations for these actions at all.

The einsatzgruppe were told exactly this, that what they were doing was "in the interest of the Third Reich"...and they swallowed it. Or just played along. Reading a book like "Hitler's Willing Executioners" certainly makes you wonder whether the German Military had completely lost their sensibilities in WW2...not just war for revanche, but war for survival of the ubermenchen?

I certainly wouldn't buy that line of thought.

 

The SS guards at Dachau were not all killed by any stretch of the imagination, since no less than 130 of them survived to be both interrogated and imprisoned themselves.

In regards to this shooting of SS guards at Dachau, there were investigations made of the incident shortly thereafter, and those responsible were sentenced to prison/stockade time by the US Army for their actions, and the sentences upheld by Ike.

No one with any credibility believes there were too many more than 50 victims and the absolute maximum possible can be set at 80. This is based on the official investigation of the event and subsequent studies. The official investigation occurred quite rapidly after the event. The main documented events were killing of 5 SS at "the death train" where stacked Jewish bodies in boxcars outraged the new arrivals, 17 SS guards were killed at "the coal yard" and 10-17 SS killed at "Tower B".

Isolated killings of 1-2 here and there are not well documented but most say these amount to 10 more, perhaps. (For example see Marcuse's Legacies of Dachau). Even if one estimated an absurdly high 50 isolated deaths, and then put that on top of the main events that would be under 100 dead guards.

Some people with no credibility claim every last SS soldier/guard was killed which is thoroughly wrong and based on very poor research and/or no evidence at all. Numerous sources discuss what became of the surviving SS. The official report even notes that not all Germans were killed and other reports note where the SS prisoners that survived were transferred to for imprisonment themselves. In the largest incident, the "coal yard incident", there were around 60 SS soldiers involved, of which the aforementioned 17 were killed.

The shooting was ordered stopped before the majority were even wounded. Those who were wounded were taken to the infirmary for treatment while the uninjured were taken elsewhere to protect them from the Jewish prisoners. Not only were not all of them killed, even if one or two American servicemen did initiate fire deliberately, the other Americans could plausibly have joined in because the prisoners began running away or towards them as they claimed, moreover the commanders stopped the shooting in time to prevent most of the guards from being shot. The firing lasted for only a few seconds after all.

 

My point is that rules of war are pointless. Why are you distinguishing between killings? Killing is killing. I don't understand how anyone can take the moral highground in something where there is no morality. War is nihilism manifested in physical form.

When you make the decision to go to war you have made the decision to destroy lives in pursuit of a political goal. Morality has already been brushed aside because morality is secondary to needs of self defense and political goals.

It isn't particularly realistic to train a man to kill and not expect some abuses. One, he is predisposed to seek a violent solution to a problem through his military training. Secondly and more importantly, being in constant contact with death and destruction can and does lead to the moral and ethical warping of a man. War breeds a contempt for life that we as civilians do not understand.

The Holocaust was not the product of soldiers going crazy on a battlefield ala Malmedy or My Lai, but a systematic, orchestrated, plan to annihiliate certain groups of people.It has no parallel in history in terms of the lengths to which the executors went to murder people.

Nuremberg was a joke.So very few people were actually punished for crimes that involved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

International law is a paper tiger. When men who are indicted for crimes against humanity can openly travel across borders like Omar El Bashir has, that shoudl give you an idea of how effective law is when dealing with criminals when it has no real teeth(i.e: force).

 

Thank Christ you are not an officer in our military , then, GOM.

I think if we wanted our military servicemen to regress back to the middle ages, we certainly wouldn't spend as much money training them about "Rules of engagement' as we do.

Furthermore, imagine somebody in charge of nukes with no ROG, or no moralist 'rules of war' to hold them in check.

When I used to read Sven Hassel as a child, I probably agreed with your sentiments. Time and maturity has mellowed my opinions, and I no longer feel that 'anything goes' in wartime.

Most Western military officer corps would publically agree with me, whatever they may feel in private. But, nevertheless, I do understand your point of view...I don't think it's wrong, just misguided.

We just can't have an 'anything goes' mentality in our military services.

 

Again, war is killing. Applying law and morality to something that is immoral and beyond the control of law is pointless to me.

I am not advocating slaughtering people for no reason. Not at all. But I do think that if we are going to insist on applying law to the closest approximation of hell man can create, than we should craft laws that acknowledge the vey unique circumstances that war creates.

I nor anyone else has to imagine a war without rules. We already saw that with WWII.

War with rules is fine if all sides agree to rules. But what if one doesn't play by the rules? What then? This is where I think the imperative of winning overrides moral concerns. If someone wants to wage total war then their opponent is obligated to return the favor.

When you make the momentus decision to go to war, you go so with the intent to win. What is the use of spilling blood if you don't intend to win the war?

The way I see it, winning war--and justifying the deaths of your soldiers--is more important than adhering to ethics. Ethics, morals, and values are just constructs we humans have developed in order to form stable communities.They are not something that is irreplaceable like a family member or your own life.

But this is based upon the other side--Islamic terrorism for example--not willing to accept the rules laid out by the Geneva Convention.If the enemy does play by the rules than so must you. That's my belief anyways.

War should be the very last thing we do. It must never be decided upon in a casual manner. It must in a democracy be subjected to an intense debate and only declared after a majority of Congress agrees to it. (This is where we as a nation have screwed up. We have permitted Presidents to wage war without tacit legal approval by congress.)

One part of pities the SS men killed by the 45th, but then I think of the Holocaust and the Nazis merciless treatment of Jews, Gypsies, Pols, Russian POW's, etc... and I cannot help but think that they deserved it. It is a horrible thing to say, but I just find is difficult to find compassion for those who murdered millions of people for no reason.