German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified

[Boris Godunov]

From what my grandfather said when he told me the story, it should have been plenty obvious to the Germans on the hill that they wouldn't be able to hold out forever. Of course, they probably had also been fed lies by the German command that they faced horrible tortures if taken POW by the Allies.

When the Bismarck was sunk, the British ships started picking up German survivors, but they got reports of U-Boat activity in the area. The British navy promply left. One of the British sailors, interviewed decades later, told how he was at the side of the ship, clinging to a German sailor whose legs had been blown off. He tried desperately to bring him on board, but the German didn't have the strength to hold on as the ship sped up. The legless sailor fell back to the water. The Brit would still get teary remembering it.

Anyway, they left several hundred of the Bismarck's survivors floating in the Atlantic to die (not by drowning, either, but by exposure). Can we blame them, in this instance? They had a threat, and if it's a choice between taking prisoners and making sure your own men don't get blown to bits, which would you do?

War is Hell. Easy answers in these situations are hard to come by.

[Ned]

No Boris, the English Navy had every right to evacute the scene under threat of U-boat attack. But the initial attempt at rescue shows the true humanity and decency of the English.

[Ecthy]

...as did the Dresden bombing later on?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So let me ask you "chivalrous" types this ?

If I'm a sniper and I shoot from concealment with a nightscope and a silenced rifle from a distance where you dont have a hope in hell of spotting me, Is that OK? You're virtually a sitting duck with no more chance than the fleeing Iraqi army.

The difference is a sniper targets combatants, while the Iraqi army was retreating from the war zone. Unless the Allies intended to invade Iraq or had a serious belief that Iraq would turn around and attack, those fleeing troops should have been off limits. They were attacked not for military purposes, but political purposes.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ned


So - Engel is a Nazi. No further crime need be alleged. Just shoot him now.

Is that your position?

Just replace nazi with terrorist and you have your present US policies.

so maaybe it's better if you took a quick glance at the mirror?

[Ned]

I'm sorry Ecthelion, but I personally am tired of defending Dresden or the night bombing of German cities conducted by the British most of the war. The very justification of this bombing - terrorism - is today in disrepute.

I won't defend it anymore. If any leaders of that campaign are still alive, I would vote (if I could vote) they be tried as war criminals.

[Ned]

Paiktis, We have a lot of al Qaida in custody. We don't just shoot them.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The difference is a sniper targets combatants, while the Iraqi army was retreating from the war zone. Unless the Allies intended to invade Iraq or had a serious belief that Iraq would turn around and attack, those fleeing troops should have been off limits.

If they wanted to surrender they should have done so. Retreating troops are just that, they can still turn and fight. It was the responsibility of our commanders on the ground to prevent the possibility of our casualties not to worry about the enemy casualties.

They were attacked not for military purposes, but political purposes.

Please enlighten me

[chequita guevara]

The purpose of killing them was to show what we are capable of doing, therfore, don't ever bother to fight us.

SpnceH, if there were a serious, belief that those troops were going to turn around and fight, fine. Even at the time, the US said that wasn't the reason. The US stated its reason for killing all those troops was because they were taking their equipment with them. Iraq had already said it was pulling out, it had given up.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ned Nazis massacred and killed people. so they had to be killed. there wasn't really any question about it.

you dont know if al qaeda is really what you have there or what they did.

i should propably make a thread with all the mosntrocities of the nazis in occupied europe to give you an idea of what we are talking about.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned


A quote directly from Patton, I believe.

I think the objective is to defeat the enemy with as few casualties on both sides as possible.

AFAIK Pattons 3rd army had quite high casualty figures so I guess he didnt achieve his objective then.

Another quote attributed to Patton

"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofa***** die for his."

I believe your attitude, Spencer, is what the ICC calls "no quarter." If what you said is really true, the use of poison gas, bio-weapons or battlefield nuclears weapons would be quite permissible because the objective of piling up the corpses as high as possible would be the thing to do in all circumstances.

Churchill, who had seen war as a correspondant in South Africa, was willing to use poison gas on the Nazi's. The only reason it wasnt used was because there wasnt enough of it to be effective. I dont believe in "no quarter" but I dont believe in losing a war either. If you dont want to win dont fight.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The purpose of killing them was to show what we are capable of doing, therfore, don't ever bother to fight us.

A perfectly valid military reason.

Iraq had already said it was pulling out, it had given up.

Iraq said it was pulling out is not the same as Iraq had surrendered.

Personally, I think we would have been better off until the Iraqi dictator was dead, but the President did not ask for my opinion

[Ned]

Well, Spencer, we may soon succeed in finishing the job of the Iragi dictator. My point is that the highway of death forced a premature conclusion to the conflict. Had this not happened, we may have completely destroyed the Republican Guard and made Saddam's downfall immediate.

Regardless of the military reasons for attacking the column(s), I am willing to bet that if the military had it do do all over again, the highway of death would have come out differently.

[Ecthy]

Ned, why do you tell me you're sorry when you think in the right direction?

[Ned]

I'm sorry because I have defended our actions in WWII for a long time knowing in the bottom of my heart they were wrong.