it would appear the allies were no angels

getz

Morlar wrote: »

That reminds me of what a Czech friend of mine told me about how his grandmother ran a shop, whenever the Germans came they left their rifles outside and paid for whatever they needed. When the Russians came they just took everything at gunpoint whether they needed it or not.

well you have to remember in those days the german were better educated and most of the russian soldiers were illiterate and scared.the consentration camp DACHAU was built in 1933,two months before hitler become chancellor nazi gangs roamed the streets burning jewish homes and buisneses, adolf hitlers nazi party was never elected into power ,they only got 40% of the vote, but by using corruption he got his party in.

Dr Strange

Concentration camps were already built before that. But they were used for what the name implied, concentrating criminals and undesireables such as political opponents for "re-education". That people got bullied, even mistreated and died due to beatings (don't forget execution of criminals was still lawful by then in many countries. Germany still had the Guillotine for normal criminals such as murderers) and shootings (there are some accounts of repeteteive criminals such as burglars getting shot...three strikes and you're out kind of thing) is known. After the period of detention the inmates were released back into the community, particularly political opponents who were now regarded as "harmless".

These camps were not designated as extermination camps and only some of them became extermination camps later in the years. They rather built other extermination camps from scratch and outside the generally populated areas.

Tony EH

getz wrote: »

in a letter to herr gemich dated september 16th 1919 adolf hitler made clear his thought on the jews lay,init he put down on paper his ideas and thoughts, link,www.historylearningsite.co.uk.

It doesn't matter what Hitler wrote in a letter or said to specific groups. His public rhetoric was usually very different.

He, or the National Socialists didn't get to power on a platform of killing Jews or war.

Tony EH

getz wrote: »

well you have to remember in those days the german were better educated and most of the russian soldiers were illiterate and scared.the consentration camp DACHAU was built in 1933,two months before hitler become chancellor nazi gangs roamed the streets burning jewish homes and buisneses, adolf hitlers nazi party was never elected into power ,they only got 40% of the vote, but by using corruption he got his party in.

They didn't use corruption at all. It was Von Hindenburg that approached Hitler with a view to becoming Chancellor, even though the National Socialist vote was waining.

And while their was anti-Jewish sentiment, there was NO "burning of Jewish homes and businesses" before or during 1933. You're thinking of 1938.

FiSe

Anti-Jewish laws were introduced in 1935, I think, but Nazis were busy to sort out their interparty differencies before...

Fratton Fred

Preusse wrote: »

No, but your argument asking about the deportation of jews by Allies. You know perfectly well that didn't happen so starting to ask this in light of German and Allied atrocities does not contribute to the argument and defeats itself as you know that nobody will say: yes, sure, the Allies did that as well.

I think you are taking me up wrong,

Tony EH wrote: »

Raising the issue of "Jews" is strawman argument Fred.

By the way, it's estimated that about 40,000 French civilians alone were killed by Allied bombing. I've never seen an estimate from arty and other general "wastage."

strawman? how?

The poster said that more French civilians were killed by the Allies than by the Germans. Yes, a lot were killed by the Allies in bombing as you point out and a lot more would have been killed during the town by town fighting and it would be impossible to say who killed those unfortunate people, but the Germans (Ably assisted by the Vichy government) deported over 70,000 French jews alone. How is that a strawman arguement?

Tony EH

Because you were framing it as a comparison, when you know that no such comparison can be made.

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Alrite so, I've posted something about the German use of the rescue planes in Red Cross marking and the attacks of the RAF on those planes, but for you once more:
'...and so I picked up one of my books /Seeflieger by Adam Thompson and David Wadman/ in which some of the Red Cross incidents are described, for example:

1. 7. 1940 He-59 D-ASAM forced down by Spits of 72Sqn. Enemy aircraft was operating suspiciously close to the British convoy, although on genuine rescue operation /looking for crew of He-115 M2+CL/

9. 7. 1940 He-59 D-ASUO forced down by Spits of 54Sqn. Entries in the pilot log's noted positions and movements of the British convoys and other shipping...

Subsequently the Air Ministry Order No. 1254 was issued on 29.7.1940... you can Google it. '

So to verify your theories I have to go out and buy some obscure book . Don't think I'll bother thanks. Also I did Google Air Ministry Order 1254 and surprise, surprise.......got nothing.

In the same book there is a photograph of Do24 at the end of the war with its MG turret removed, not blanked out and with Red Cross marking. Which, as caption says '...this particular aircraft may have been one of the several which took part in Kurland evacuation.'

The actions of Skorzeny's commando during The Battle Of The Bulge are well known, perhaps lesser known fact is that British commandos were dressed up in German uniforms for some actions as well. Maybe they had a Dodge ambulance with the Red Cross emblem, but can't see any relevant point to this discussion here. Well if we want to claim this as a British war crime of course.

I have mentioned those vehicles, M3 Halftruck in US Army colours and I believe Opel Maultier representing the WH, but as I said, I will have to dig it up somewhere, if I can find it - no it wasn't google, I still prefer books - as these are the types I am not too interested in.

Anyway, judging by your last post I think that you are in your element again and I think that I'm wasting my time.....again....

So maybe sometime I'll post something like " Goebbels liked the odd bootle of Guinness " and then I'll go and quote some obsure book to back up my assertions. I think that I'm wasting my time.....again....

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

So to verify your theories I have to go out and buy some obscure book . Don't think I'll bother thanks. Also I did Google Air Ministry Order 1254 and surprise, surprise.......got nothing.

So maybe sometime I'll post something like " Goebbels liked the odd bootle of Guinness " and then I'll go and quote some obsure book to back up my assertions. I think that I'm wasting my time.....again....

You should go and ask your local library to get the book, so's you can pack your evenings with fun-packed reading fun.

..and also, Google doesn't come up trumps on your point either:


Did you mean: " Goebbels liked the odd bottle of Guinness "
No results found for " Goebbels liked the odd bootle of Guinness ".


You must also be using a bogus Google, because the Order to which Fise referred, is mentioned on this wiki page.
:P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sea_rescue

Manic Moran

Also I did Google Air Ministry Order 1254 and surprise, surprise.......got nothing.

In fairness, it didn't take too much effort to discover that it was actually Air Ministry Bulletin #1254., but the date seems to have been 13/7/1940.

NTM

diverdriver

Ah the usual internet debate, people with modern agendas or in certain cases ancient agendas, making points out of context, judging people with hindsight and holding soldiers to a standard of behaviour they themselves would hardly expect to take.

First off there's the idea that Allied war crimes are ignored in history and in TV/Movies. But as someone already pointed out murdering prisoners was depicted in both Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan. The issue is also addressed in many books. Both Stephen Ambrose and Richard Holmes discuss the practice in detail, sometimes with heartrending descriptions of what happened. Even the Irish army has a bit of record of killing prisoners and dare we mention the IRA? They call themselves Irish soldiers, yet their behaviour told otherwise.

Name a war and you find atrocities, doesn't excuse it but there you are.

As for the Red Cross debate, well if the symbol wasn't abused which it was regularly there wouldn't be a problem but it was. However in all my reading medics on the battlefield were often off limits and it was considered bad form to shoot medics going about their business, at least in the west. On the other hand there were instances of medics being shot out of hand because they were carrying sidearms.

It is wrong depicting the Germans as universally the bad guys. It wasn't alway true particularly in the desert war. This interested me.

whenever the Germans came they left their rifles outside and paid for whatever they needed.

I remember reading about the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans had reoccupied a Belgian village around Christmas and there was a description of them buying Christmas presents to send home. I was taken aback by that somehow. I felt they would simply shoot the owner and steal everything but of course they were at that time mostly young guys, properly brought up. It's just they happened to be fighting for a monstrous regime.


Criticising aspects of how the Allies conducted the war is reasonable enough, area bombing etc. Comparing it to the genocidal Nazi regime is simply nonsense. Remember the Nazis were only starting with the Jews. They fully intended to wipe out the Poles and any Slavs they could lay their hands on. They had every intention of turning most of the territory east of them into a greater Germany and had no intention of sharing with the indigenous population who were either to be eliminated or made slaves and worked to death. They had made a great start on that already.

Even the Soviets bad as they were with that demon Stalin in charge could hardly be compared to the kind of evil the Nazis perpetrated or planned.

That's the context of the times and the war that was. So get off you moral high horses or at least remove the anti Brit, anti American blinkers some of you like to wear and be glad the right side won the war.

FiSe

Well said.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

You should go and ask your local library to get the book, so's you can pack your evenings with fun-packed reading fun.

I have too many fun-packed evenings to waste my time on such a trivial matter, but since you obviously need something to do in your life maybe you should order it at your local library, scan it onto your pc and post it on the forum.

..and also, Google doesn't come up trumps on your point either:


Did you mean: " Goebbels liked the odd bottle of Guinness "
No results found for " Goebbels liked the odd bootle of Guinness ".

" Google doesn't come up trumps on your point either " I'm not surprised, it wasn't supposed to be factual

You must also be using a bogus Google, because the Order to which Fise referred, is mentioned on this wiki page.
:P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sea_rescue

Air Ministry Order 1254. No it's not

prinz

getz wrote: »

....,remember during WW11 the german catholic church used jewish slave labour...

This old nugget. A few thousand Jewish labourers were 'used' by the Catholic Church in Germany. These were not engaged as 'slave labourers', but were employed as care takers, cooks, nurses aids etc. They were under the protection of the Church and could not be summarily executed or arrested and deported. These Jews were in effect saved from their alternate fate much like Oskar Schindler's Jews.

Unlike many corporations who saw the chance to make a quick buck, the Church had workers assigned to them by the Nazi regime, mostly because the people previously employed by the Church-run schools, hospitals, etc had been conscripted and sent to the front as soldiers.

prinz

Fuinseog wrote: »

i wonder did the americans and British ever rape French and German women or just have a relationship with them?
contrary to popular belief the French were not appreciative of the Allies, especially those living around the Caen area. the allies probably killed more French civilians than the Germans.

An American or British soldier faced a court martial and possible execution if found to have committed rape. The average Russian soldier Joe got a slap on the back for the same thing. The allies in the West did not encourage their troops to rape as they went, the Soviets did.

Your contention that the French were not appreciative of the allies is nonsense for the most part. The fact that the allies were welcomed to every village and town as liberators speaks volumes. That said in many areas during the occupation relations were quite relaxed between the Germans and the French. I know of a story from a member of my French brother-in-laws family ( his grandmother IIRC ) she was walking through town one day and a German soldier passed some comment about her, which would probably be harmless today :pac:, anyway she told her mother, and her mother went straight to the local commander to tell him about it, she said that the young German soldier was made suit up in full kit and run laps around a huge wheat field for hours on end, this was in the middle of summer too. Such a contrast to the usual stories. But if you asked her if she appreciated the allies.. of course she did.

Tony EH

It's not quite correct to suggest that the Allies were welcomed everywhere they went. Many French towns and villages, while happy to be rid of the Bosch, recieved the Allies with stoney silence. It wasn't all Parisien flag waving.

Some French people were positively loathsome of American troops and a huge number hated the British.

Antony Beevor's new book on D Day goes some way to shattering some of these myths.

...Cpl LF Roker of the Highland Light Infantry is quoted in another new book about the civilian impact of the campaign, Liberation, The Bitter Road to Freedom, by William Hitchcock. "It was rather a shock to find we were not welcomed ecstatically as liberators by the local people, as we were told we should be... They saw us as bringers of destruction and pain," Mr Roker wrote in his diary.
Another soldier, Ivor Astley of the 43rd Wessex Infantry, described the locals as "sullen and silent... If we expected a welcome, we certainly failed to find it."

Even more feared, of course, was the crime of rape - and here too the true picture has arguably been expunged from popular memory.
According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war.



"The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common," writes Mr Hitchcock.



"It also shows that black soldiers convicted of such awful acts received very severe punishments, while white soldiers received lighter sentences."
Of 29 soldiers executed for rape by the US military authorities, 25 were black - though African-Americans did not represent nearly so high a proportion of convictions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm


An interesting article on the BBC. Ignore the idotic headline though. It seems that any questioning or even the raising of a sceptical eye against the "Glory propaganda" of the Allied war effort gets one labeled as a "Revisionist".



Antony Beevor or Max Hastings can hardly be called "Revisionsts". :rolleyes:

prinz

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not quite correct to suggest that the Allies were welcomed everywhere they went....

But in general, France has gone along with the accepted version of the landings and their aftermath - that of a joyful liberation for which the country is eternally grateful.
That version is the correct one. France was indeed freed from tyranny, and the French were both happy and thankful.
But it is still worth remembering that it all came at a cost.

From the same BBC article. To suggest that "the French were not appreciative of the allies" is equally as incorrect IMO.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

I have too many fun-packed evenings to waste my time on such a trivial matter, but since you obviously need something to do in your life maybe you should order it at your local library, scan it onto your pc and post it on the forum.

" Google doesn't come up trumps on your point either " I'm not surprised, it wasn't supposed to be factual

Air Ministry Order 1254. No it's not

I wouldn't dream of breaching copyright by scanning a publication and posting it here, or anywhere else for that matter.

I thought that your Google reference was factual until I discovered that you were trying to hoodwink us all with your clever ways. I won't believe anything you tell me now.:eek:

And as for the last point, it was close enough, and you're splitting hairs.

Tony EH

prinz wrote: »

From the same BBC article. To suggest that "the French were not appreciative of the allies" is equally as incorrect IMO.

I don't think anyone suggested the "the French" engaged in any such thing.

prinz

Fuinseog wrote: »

contrary to popular belief the French were not appreciative of the Allies

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think anyone suggested the "the French" engaged in any such thing.

Must be just me so...