German atrocities in WWII, systematic or just like everyone else?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by germanos


Holland persued a policy of strict neutrality, and it had hoped it could remain neutral, just as it had been in WWI.

Holland did call for help when it got invaded, and indeed there had been close ties between Holland and Britain, but I doubt they were allies as f.e. Poland and Britain were.

Once German troops entered Dutch territory the Dutch government asked for assistance from France and Britain and agreed to a co-operativ defence, i.e., they joined the alliance. At the moment when German bombs fell on Rotterdam, then, the Netherlands was a member of the alliance, and its other members could properly consider bombing attacks on Dutch cities as being essentially the same as bombing attacks on their own cities.
The Dutch were very much allies in the same sense as Poland. After the fall of the Netherlands the Dutch government in exile continued to wage war against the Axis powers. Volunteer Dutch pilots participated in the Battle of Britain, the Dutch navy co-operated with the allies in the Pacific, and small contingents of Dutch troops participated in the Great Crusade to liberate Europe.

[Patroklos]

Because not every German soldier participated in war crimes, and the ones who did are not likely to advertise it in a published memoir.

You are right, UNSUBSTATIATED memiors are not acceptable. But if you have serveral from different sides and viewpoints that nominally agree on things then yes they are very much sources. And primary sources are the basis of all historical writing. You can write a book using just primary, but you can't write one using just secondary. Of course ideally you want to have a good mix of both, as all the books mentioned do.

[Alexander's Horse]

and the primary sources support the conclusion that the whole German war machine was engaged in a criminal enterprise and refusal to take part war crimes was almost unknown even though tasks such as mass executions were carried out by volunteers.

All the crimes are airbrushed out of just about every wartime account I have read.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

In terms of its stated objectives perhaps but it was very effective in other ways - like bringing the war home to Germany and tying down the Luftwaffe.

For the U.S. at least it was a failure in absolute terms. We lost more men pursuing a strategic bombing campaign in Europe than we would have lost had the resources been allocated to something else. The main waste wasn't the aircraft (though they were expensive), but the personnel. In particular it wasn't just the loss of the personnel killed in action, but the opportunity cost of letting the people who should be the junior officers and NCOs of your line units instead spend the war performing manual tasks like firing a single machine gun on a heavy bomber. The U.S. was desperately short of the sorts of fellows who were good officer material by the time most of the ground units were formed. The mistake was letting the Air Force have the pick of the litter. As the Air Force was blooded earlier they managed to not only have the pick of the volunteers during the early part of the war, but also the pick of the replacements. The effects on the army were hard indeed. Compare the quality of the early war units (ie the professional army) and the all-volunteer units like the 101st AB to the 106th Division.

Of course once the decision is taken it's too late to do much about it. It made sense that once we built a big expensive bomber wing with many of our best men in it that we use it. And it did manage to make some contributions to the war effort as you and I have both pointed out.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the loss of tactical air support for the Wehrmacht was a huge factor in their change of fortunes from 1943 onwards.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

Even more curious is the fact that much of the initial writings drawn on in Germany that led to the Nazi racial programs came out of the US, and that the Nazis actually based some of their initial laws, for example those on marraige, off of those already extant in the US Southern states (miscegnation statutes). There is a very curious history, but I don't want to steer the thread into another bywater.

I'm willing to bet that there were plenty of racial "studies" available in Germany and other European countries as well, and I'd like to point out that the term "Aryan" almost certainly came from Europe, so evidently the bulk of his misconceptions came from his own side of the Atlantic.

However, the Secretary of the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the 1920s and 1930s, a guy named Dr. Pinkus bears a unique distinction among American bureacrats. He is the only one to have ever received a formal letter of commendation from Der Fuhrer himself. Dr. Pinkus personally wrote two major pieces of legislation, one banning inter-racial marriage, and the other providing for the neutering of the mentally retarded. The acting providing for the neutering of the rearded was abolished as late as the 1970s. Two years ago the state finally removed Dr. Pinkus' name from all state buildings, including one housing mentally retarded people.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think the loss of tactical air support for the Wehrmacht was a huge factor in their change of fortunes from 1943 onwards.

Furthermore the bombing campaign was the major factor in the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Not only did Allied planes destroy aircraft factories and planes on the ground, but also large numbers of German fighters were destroyed in air battles over Germany. I believe that on the average three or four German fighters were downed for each bomber destroyed.

[Alexander's Horse]

Aside from the racial separation laws in the South, the nazis were also interested in eugenics which was a bit of a fad in parts of the U.S. medical profession in the 1920's and 30's.

This seemed to give a scientific basis for selective breeding, the possibility of a super race etc. but I forget the details. I know sterilising the disabled was one of its major side effects and this went on with the mentally ill well after the war ended in many Western countries.

[Ramo]

IIRC a German bomber hit London accidently during the battle of britain, and the Brits answered with attack on Berlin the next day.

Hmmm.. I must be confusing the Coventry attack with the London one. In any case, my point was that the claim that Germany was bombing British civilian populations before the Brits were bombing German civilian populations is tenuous.

[Alexander's Horse]

German initial air raids on London were not accidental. London was a major port and the docks were the target.

[Patroklos]

All the crimes are airbrushed out of just about every wartime account I have read.

Not maintaining in the slightest that some books are biased and contain outright lies. If you haven't read any German memiors that don't gloss over bad, buy better books. I doubt many published Soviet veteran memoirs from 1945-89 mention any war crimes either. Serb is testiment why, though some veterans since then don't have the same mind to continue the lie now that the puppetmasters are gone. I'll put my faith in the German primary sources like the rest of the historical world, applying the proper scrutiny of course.

I would say that more likely Hitler was drawing off of latent racist tendancies present in all of the Western world to include America. Nice troll though.

[Patroklos]

You are right Alexander, but they are talking about a stray bomber that hit a London suburb. Industrial facilities are not considered civilian targets.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Not maintaining in the slightest that some books are biased and contain outright lies. If you haven't read any German memiors that don't gloss over bad, buy better books. I doubt many published Soviet veteran memoirs from 1945-89 mention any war crimes either. Serb is testiment why, though some veterans since then don't have the same mind to continue the lie now that the puppetmasters are gone. I'll put my faith in the German primary sources like the rest of the historical world, applying the proper scrutiny of course.

Well we're talking about the German sources here and most if not all of those are just about silent on war crimes in their area of operations. We know the historical record and the memoirs omit a great deal, especially unsavoury or shameful events.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And neither of you have produced any books/websites at all.

Okay, maybe English is your second language so let's try this again. You made two statements. People have asked you for facts that show your statements are true. No one is asking for book titles. Instead, provide a quote (that's where you copy what was written and type it into the "Post Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the page).

If you make a claim then you better be able to substantiate it (sorry for using big words. This means prove it). If you can't, and seems to be the case, then people are going to say "bull".

You claim the evidence is on the SS website. Well then cut and paste it here. The fact that you refuse to do so suggests that you're lying.

You claim Beevor's book has evidence. Fine, quote it. But you don't which again suggests you are lying.

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is called a primary source. Serious historians, or smart people in general (ie not you I guess), us them.

The study of history requires critical thought. You seem to believe everything that you read. Just because a publisher claims that all the facts were checked, doesn't mean that they were and if they were, it doesn't mean the facts were checked correctly. A classic example is Trevor-Roper's claim that the so-called Hitler Diaries were authentic.

You also have to consider the bias of the author. A memoirs tell us what the writer was thinking when the book was written. By no stretch of the imagination should it be taken as the gospel truth.

Originally posted by Patroklos
The WSSOB backs up my truth very well... The Feldgrau website is also impeccable

Fine, then quote some examples.

Originally posted by Patroklos
"British colonial troops had the WORST record in killing" stated as an opinion...

Yes, we all know that it was an opinion, and we now that you were wrong.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Patroklos - 2 books, 2 websites
Serb - His ass
You - Thin air

First, I have quoted from Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin.

But if we're going to use the Patroklos approach to history, then I'll mention the Bible, Lord of the Rings, Anne of Green Gables, Civ3.com, SCMP.com and NHL.com. There you go, according to your approach to history, I have mentioned three books and three websites so therefore you are wrong.

If you ever decide to post some facts then let me know. Your whining is getting tedious.

[Alexander's Horse]

One rather odious example of the "chivalrous" attitude of the SS was the view that murdering Jews and others was actually a form of mercy killing. SS troops were told by their officers that they were putting their victims out of their misery as sub humans, unfit to live. They should be proud of their "courage" and "heroism" in performing this difficult secret task for the benefit of humanity.

There are many many references to this from all levels of the SS from Himmler down including to the fighting units who often participated in murder.