Greatest Allied Atrocity of W.W.II

I don´t know if this is the (final) truth but here´s something on the Coventry bombing:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690

 

Kai,
Cheers. Should lay things to rest......'till the NEXT conspiracy theory.
Regards,
Gordon

 

” The unfortunate fact is that the raid was expected over London, not Coventry. Even so, 119 aircraft were launched to protect the city once the bombers were seen to be heading for it.”

Now there’s a thing, I for one never knew target prediction was so accurate! Coventry to Birmingham, city centre to city centre, is only 18 miles. Just think, a slight wind shift or whatever, and the target could have been Northampton, or Wolverhampton, Rugby, Leicester, Nuneaton, Warwick or Birmingham itself?

No.9

 

Don't ever do that again Martin
I went on to the site, and I had to disinfect my computer and wash my eye-balls afterwards

 

Redcoat,
Mine still stinks of dettol!

Regards,
gordon

 

To play the Advocatis diaboli, one can say that Babi Jar and the Nazis extermination policy was just an ultimative, extreme willingness to think and wage "total war" in an uncompromising way with a complete neglection of any humanity.

If the "costs" (security troops, feeding, clothing, threat to the occupier) of a (group of) person(s) is higher than the potential "gains" (workforce, price as a hostage), it's "rational" to get rid of it, because this person(s) is/are a handicap to your war efforts.

Tha Nazis plan to kill/letting starve 20 million or so civilians in Russia made sense in this reckless "accountant's logic": 20 m less potential "enemies", 20 m less consuming food.

Cheers,

 

I know the logic was the nazis´ core ideology in the east especially but wasn´t for example Poland one of the bloodiest countries after the purges for the Germans?? Even if horrible revenge actions were promised and probably done, Germans were still captured and killed in cities etc in Poland , I don´t know if more than any place else? So In the end this action meant you´d have to kill 1.the families of the "enemies" 2.everybody else later.

 

I just want to say two things:

1) That Italian-Americans were to some extent, inprisonned in Ellis Island during WWII, including some leading figures of Music, ARt and Politics simply because fake-reports to the FBI in a pure Gestapo style. Not an attrocity, but a very shameful thing.

2) Isolating a specific part of a country's populations because of concerns that loyalty is to be questioned because of its origins is pure xenophobia. If I remember well, the nazis and the Germans started segregating Jews because their loyalty to Germany was in doubt and they could damage the German people...

 

Freddie,
The second's not a fair comparison, considering Germany wasn't at war when the persecution of Jews started.
Britain and America started internment after finding themselves plunged into war.

Regards,
Gordon

 

No comparisson with the nazis is a fair one, since you're talking of extremes.

However, in Hitler's mind, the 1930s were certainly a period of struggle and war against Germany's enemies.

But alright, I leave this here. It's too relative. I think you can see my point that internment of Japanese Americans and others was not an attrocity but surely a human rights violation and a shameful chapter of USA History.

 

I don’t quite follow you Freddy. Internment of so called ‘Enemy Aliens’ was not a bizarre policy at the time and did not immediately equate to total asset seizure and maltreatment – or worse. I would not even rule it out today in the western world by some governments, if, they felt they could get away with it. And yes, I do specifically have the USA in mind.

Re ”the nazis and the Germans started segregating Jews because their loyalty to Germany was in doubt”, the Jews, as a religious body, never declared war or terrorism against Germany. German Jews fought for Germany in W.W.I along with the rest of the country. Hitler’s idea that the actions or inaction’s of Jewish financiers had a direct bearing on the outcome of W.W.I could not possibly justify the extreme persecution of ordinary German citizens who happened to be Jewish. Come to that, in what way did the Gypsies, Homosexuals or disabled ever threaten State integrity?

No.9

 

”I went on to the site, and I had to disinfect my computer and wash my eye-balls afterwards”

What’s up Red? You gone soft or suffering memory loss? Like me you’re a veteran of the old THC before the big bang and should be used to being confronted by revisionists, nazis and terrorists?

Like the sewers under the streets we know they’re down there and you know perfectly well what to expect if you go below. Equally, you know exactly what to do whenever it bubbles to the surface.

No.9

ps, the Partisans are still around you know

 

With the experiences of the 1918 revolution and "stab-in-the-back"-legend and the "Jewish-Bolshevist" terror (= lumped together because of the gross overrepresentation of Jews in the Bolshevist/Communist movement compared to thier actual % of the entire population) this becomes explainable.

A bit like all hardcore muslims today have a smack of "radical islam terrorists" to us westerneers today.

Cheers,

 

But it makes perfect sense if the POTENTIAL security risk to the own war effort of this group is higher than their benefit to it (workforce, recruitment etc.).

That's why killing wounded prisoners makes sense too - as long as it isn't more efficient to heal/feed them to let them work as slaves for you.

Killing prisoners of the defeated side was absolutely "normal" for many thousands years, why shouldn't it be allowed facing a total war with the threat of the complete destruction of your own people?

Just a thought.

Cheers,

 

Here are my comments to these quotes from this other thread: Germans invited to D-day celebration before it's more hi-jacked than it is already.

First, those 'laughing-boys' have provided us with the free world we live in. Second, even if the deaths of innocent civilians is a tragic event, it was not tragic the death of then enemy soldiers and workers, destruction of military infaestructure and communication lines, thus reducing the enemy's war capabilities.

Correction. As stated above, to severely damage the enemy's capabilities of waging and making war by destroying logistics, industries, killing its workers, leaving them homeless, breaking their morale and making them reluctant to go on with the war.

Roughly half million Germans. But I think you're forgetting more names: Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Khárkov, Antwerp, etc.

I'd like to see it too. But there's not such a source, because that figure is completely false.

This is one of the wisest - even if harsh - remarks I've read in a long time.

 

Freddie,
A well-balanced response to a post designed to cause as much strife as possible. You have my respect.

Regards,

Gordon

 

This thread is good (and I, of course mean the discussion, not the subject).

Nine, I perfectly know that and I 100% agree with you. But tell that to Hitler, Heydrich and Himmler. Tell that to millions of intolerant Germans who not only didn't say a word, but co-operated and even aplauded it!

Yes, you're right. Guess it's again a matter of different times, differents morals as Cicero said.

Thank you very much, Gordon. I appreciate your words. However, my post is a little too harsh for my eyes...

 

I don't want to rain on your parade, but:

"destroying logistics": Bomber Command was, to use the more euphemistic term, "very reluctant" to participate in the USAAF's campaign against the german transportation system. In general, the target of the BC were the German cities and not those so-called "panacea" targets (oil and ball industries, transportation system etc.)

The policy of the BC was basically about destroying entire cities, including everything inside: industries, rail, roads, infrastructure, workers, factories, houses, families, everything what comes with a city.

USAAF's bombing policy was, again in general, critical key targets: aircraft industries, ball industries, oil, transportation etc., which doesn't mean that they didn't just area bombed entire cities to destroy those key targets with it.


"industries": I can name at least a dozen bombing targets where the target was the "City" and not the industrial areas outside the city.

"killing its workers": yes, and thier families.

"leaving them homeless": yes

"breaking their morale": Yes. A miserable failure.

"reluctant to go on with the war": This is arguable. While secret SD polls do in fact notice a decline in "morale" in cities who were "browned", it is also notable that the population recovered from that "blow" pretty soon.

In general, the German moral blow of Stalingrad to the German population was much more severe, however, the Germans fought well until 1945 despite all defeats.

Roughly half million Germans. [/qb][/QUOTE]

Of course the number of millions is way too high. The official number is around 660,000+ dead, with more recent reseach estimating this number as being on the lower limit.

Cheers,

 

I can’t agree that the killing of prisoners was standard practice in the past. I don’t say it didn’t occur nor that it was not ordered at times, and, among some peoples/tribes it no doubt was. However, even when considering the order at Agincourt (1415) to kill the French prisoners (whether or not this was in response to they killing the baggage train), the order was deemed exceptional and not the way war was conducted.

As regards air bombing houses, a study conducted during W.W.II by the British following a bombing of Hull concluded that people found losing their home more distressing than losing a relative or friend.

No.9

 

BTW,

Were all the Organisation Todt men shot immediately? I read that as they wore ( only higher ranked or everyone? ) the nazi swastika on their arm they were not given any mercy?

Anybody know on their destiny?