Worst War Crimes of WW2?

Sorry, didn't know it would offend you. However, I will sort of have to argue that all Germans are held accountable for the actions of the Nazis. They kept Hitler in for a reason and he kept himself in. Why? Like I said in an earlier post, he gave them jobs which meant a living, look at what Roosevelt did. He wasn't a dictator, but as we all know he went over 2 terms because he gave the people HOPE and he ran the country well. Hitler? He gave the people hope as well; however he did it under force and he eliminated any of his opponents, which means no opposition. He was a dictator, he ran the country the way he wanted to. All Germans at the time do not deserve to be held accountable for the actions of the Nazis, the ones who committed crimes and turned in Jews or other "undesirables", however, do need to be held accountable.

PS: I am not comparing Hitler and Roosevelt politically, they were completely different. If I am going to far please let me know and I will stop talking about it.

 

They kept him because after 1933 when Hitler gained power no elections would be held in any part of Germany until 1949. The only way to remove Hitler from office would be if he wanted to step down or if he was killed (which people tried to do).

 

Too true, and by making all other political parties illegal, and then only allowing Nazis to vote, it is pretty easy to stay in power and seem to be "reflecting the will" of the people. I always "loved" the caucus votes he would call for to "approve" of the job he was doing. For some reason 95+% of the ballots were in his favor.

Go figure (LOL).

 

He claims "providence" keep him alive what ever that is and the only reason why he was alive after 2 assassination attempts that i counted was because i have know idea........

 

Well that is part of the "Hitler myth", there is no record of that episode where a "voice" told him to move out of a trench having taken place other than Hitler's own recounting. And there were 17 serious attempts on his life between 1938 and 1945, and an estimated 45 in total counting those which never went beyond the "planning" stage.

"Operation Foxley" was one of those that never went beyond the planning, but there were 17 honest attempts to kill the man that failed for various reasons.

 

I only know Valkyrie and one were a suicide bomber was going to blow both him and Hitler up in a museum failed because Hitler left early or something like that and another that was suppose to blow up his plane.O and he was gassed in ww1.

 

Assassination Attempts on Hitler’s Life

Axis History Factbook: Assassination Plots & Attempts

 

Thats what I meant when I said he removed all of his opponents. Like I said, he was a dictator, he could do whatever he wanted and unfortunately it killed many people.

 

I don´t think so, sir. There was the Gestapo to stop any revolt or desertion. It includes every one who tried to leave Berlin... The terror bombings against were just a brutal waste of resources.

The same for the blitz even V weapons, but without Gestapo.

 

You're not offending me; I am just merely trying to illuminate the terrain which seem intent to wander through.

Hitler and Roosevelt are very similar in the things they did; up to a point.

 

Could you point out that portion to me?

That's certainly not the impression I got. They addressed those situations because those were the only ones so invisioned at the time. However if you look at WWI some of the bombardments there particualry of Paris don't seem to fit yet I don't remember them being declared war crimes.

Obviously false.

On the contrary it clearly did not violate the letter as it was not directly addressed. As for the spirit I would dispute that as well. It allowed for attacking military structures, personel, and stores and required only that civilians and civilian only structures and stores not be directly targeted.

 

That's pretty easy there were German attacks on Polish and Dutch cities very early in the war not to mention the BOB.

Well a quick look at wiki and from: Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
we have:

The British resorted to it because the Germans were already practicing it and at that time and for the rest of the war they did indeed have at least some cpablity of facing the German army on the ground. Afrika alone proves this.

 

lwd,

Africa showed only that the Brits do have a chance if the Germans weren´t good enough supplied and had to fight for most of the Italians too. Except some of the brave fighting Italian divisions! Nothing more or less!

Regards

Ulrich

 

The thing you have to take into account about Africa is that the Allies had Air Superiority, it was really (for the British) the only place they were fighting at the time so could pour full resources into it, and they were going up against a mainly Italian force, in a theatre that Hitler etc considered a 'sideshow'. Its a good thing for everyone that the Axis (well, the Germans) didn't put more of a focus into it, since it was a close thing in the end.

 

Sideshow it certainly was for the Germans, in 1941 they committed two divisions out of the 100+ they had mobilized, that's less than 2%.
But the air superiority of the Allies is not a sure, Stukas operated succesfuly in NA well into 1942 and we all know their vulnerability to enemy fighters.

 

The Hague Conventions took place long before the advent of the four engine bomber or the grasp of strategic bombing.

I think this plays more into the tactical definition and does not take into account strategic opertions. Shelling villages and towns for the sake of making noise and winning hearts and minds is definitley frowned upon.

After WWI there was really no concept of Strategic Air or Submarine Campaigns. I think the Strategic Air Doctrine came into to being 1935 (ish). During the first years of the War (2) U-boats were prevented from attacking unarmed ships. To say that there was a certain amount of : "If they can do it so can we" used to set the "rules" is an understatement.

 

They had no capability of facing the German Army in 1940/41, and most likely would never have had it had if not for the losses in the USSR, The Balkan campaign and Norway are a good examples of what would happen had they tried to face the Germans on anything like logistical parity. The population imbalance is just too big.

The first recorded RAF attack on a citiy was on September 4 1939, the "official target" were the ships at Wilhemhaven but they dropped the bombs all over the place even hitting the neutral Danish town of Elsbjerg.
Stating your target is military is not enough if you don't have a reasonable expectation you are going to hit that and not something else and those were the results of day bombing!!

AFAIK the Germans switched to non military targets in the BoB only after the Berlin attack by bomber Command.

And yes the treaties were long before the strategib bomber and Mitchel/Douhet but the wording was of the "everything that is not explicitly allowed in the (few) described exceptions is forbidden" kind. IMO the WW1 Germans were probably more clearly involved in violations than the early WW2 ones, the Zeppelins/Gothas, Hipper's raids and the Paris gun all seem outside what was allowed, but then so was calling foodstuffs war contrabband and that caused a lot more deaths than the three combined.

 

WW2 was most definitely the end of the Gentlemanly Conduct of War.

 

More probably the industrial revolution was it, WW1 was pretty bad even if the combattants didn't have much capability of hitting targets well beyond the front lines. In WW2 there were really no longer any safe areas from a capability standpoint and the treaties were gradually discarded in an escalation of "they did that so now I can do worse". Luckily some treaties like the "non combattant" status of medics or the tratment of POWs mostly held, at least on the western front.

 

Obviously you are wrong. They faced the German army in France, Belgium, Norway, and North Africa. Perhaps you mean they had little chance of beating the German army on the continent. If so I'd agree but that's not what you said.

The did pretty well in Norway, especially in the north where things were pretty close to even. As for the Balkans I'd hardly say there was logistical parity. The Axis had a significant edge there.

???? The population of the British Commonwealth was much greater than that of Germany. How is this a factor?

Source PLS I'd like to read more of this raid. However it's worth pointing out that the RAF was not even allowed to bomb docked ships at this point in time.

On the contrary it is sufficient according to the conventions.

Well here's a timeline that's worth looking at from:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Did Hitler Save Western Civilization?

That doesn't quite square with your statement does it?

Well if I may quote the conventions agains:

and then there is this part:

Arial bombing rather implies "military reasons for immediate action" now doesn't it. And of course that section is addressing undefended towns and cities which the German cities were most definitly not.
and in this section The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Again note the "necessity of war" escape clause.