Myths about war crimes in WWII

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Most of the VV regulars seem fairly educated about this, although most others don't.

There seems to be a common perception here that massacres weren't very common in WWII. Everyone seems to think that no Wehrmacht knew about the concentration camps, or the extermination of untermenschen. They also seem to think that massacres of prisoners weren't very common outside the eastern front.

The contrary is true. Most soldiers, and many in Germany, knew about the regime's policies and the final solution. They were just apathetic. In the east SS task forces followed every single army unit, ready to round up subhumans from the captured territory and execute them. Regular soldiers would often turn up to watch and photograph the executions, and they all knew the fate of those who were sent back as slaves.

We all know prisoner massacre happened a lot on the eastern front (although perhaps not as often as portrayed in computer games - indeed frontline Russian units had a great record of accepting surrenders, although that can't be said for the rear echelons). However everyone seems to think they were almost absent from the western front, with only a few famous exceptions. That's completely untrue. There were countless hundreds of massacres commited by every army in the field. According to It Never Snows in September by Robert J. Kershaw, the Americans were particularly notorious for this. That book documents at least four killings of large groups of regular Wehrmacht POWs by 82nd Airborne soldiers during the two day battle of Nijmegen. The leader of the independent Polish Brigade of the 1st Allied Airborne Army vowed not to take any Germans alive. If a single division averaged two massacres a day how many for the whole front?

Obviously there were countless German massacres as well, although everyone seems to know about these already. In one case for example, a bunch of British POWs captured during the retreat to Dunkirk were locked in a barn and had grenades thrown in at them. Needless to say that must have happened many, many times after the D-Day landings as well.

Anyway I just wanted to dispel any impressions that the western allies had clean sheets, or that somehow atrocities by one group of bastards made the entire army terrible.

Anyone anything to add?

[motiv-8]

Well, my thinking about the whole "Germans were apathetic" thing is that.. from a realistic perspective, can you blame them? Germans either could go about their lives and try to pretend nothing was wrong, or they could speak out and become anoter victim. By the time the Final Solution developed, the people had already essentially lost their chance to make any sort of stand against the Nazi regime.

I'm not trying to excuse such conduct from a moral standpoint by saying this; I think it's incredibly sad and despicable, but it is also understandable.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Well, my thinking about the whole "Germans were apathetic" thing is that.. from a realistic perspective, can you blame them? Germans either could go about their lives and try to pretend nothing was wrong, or they could speak out and become anoter victim. By the time the Final Solution developed, the people had already essentially lost their chance to make any sort of stand against the Nazi regime.

I'm not trying to excuse such conduct from a moral standpoint by saying this; I think it's incredibly sad and despicable, but it is also understandable.

plus all the propaganda. I mean they may not have agreed with killing them but it certainly increased their apathy.

[St Naffatun]

Germans either could go about their lives and try to pretend nothing was wrong, or they could speak out and become anoter victim.

If you watch the video shown at the neuremberg trial (it's on google vids, not for the faint hearted) within the first few minutes the concentration camps are plotted on a map of europe.

If you took a handful of peanuts and threw them on a map of Europe it would resemble positions of the camps, there were that many, and many were set up well before WWII began. Inmates included amongst many others: priests, communists, anyone with links to communism, political opponents, dissidents of any sort, people caught with the wrong reading material in their possession, the disabled, homosexuals, labour leaders, civil rights campaigners.

Although many went along with the propaganda of the day as "cheerleaders" just as they do now regarding bombing brown people. I guess those of solid character resistant to propaganda either kept their mouths shut or disappeared. We had a lady talk to us at school who was at Dachau, she said the spread of "corporatism" (what Mussolini called fascism) pervading everything in life had them nervous years before crystal night.

[Hopit]

thema devia\lighter side of WWII- check pages after 6, I bet we've talked this topic to the grave

[Rolling Thunder]

Nijmegen was, in fairness, an exceptionally brutal and bloody affair, conducted at extreme close quarters and by troops that had already seen far more combat than they deserved, beyond that, the paratroops simply did not have anywhere to reliably keep their prisoners as they did not know when they're backup would arrive (unlike at Normandy)


In fairness, I've yet to hear of any accounts of Commonwealth forces killing prisoners. Possibly an indication of the way combat stress affected the men of the time - the Americans were further detached from the war, so it's brutality had more profound an effect on their psyche. British soldiers still remembered the bloodletting of the first world war and had a somewhat more....humanitarian approach to their adversaries? Or maybe not, I'm just going off a throwaway few clauses about the British Army in Decision in Normandy and Anzio (Carlo D'Est).

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Nijmegen was, in fairness, an exceptionally brutal and bloody affair, conducted at extreme close quarters and by troops that had already seen far more combat than they deserved, beyond that, the paratroops simply did not have anywhere to reliably keep their prisoners as they did not know when they're backup would arrive (unlike at Normandy)

they weren't killed because they couldn't be taken. I mean they managed to capture an intact german fortification, and they could have left the ones they captured in there with a guard, but instead they shot them in revenge for whatever casualties they had taken.

In fairness, I've yet to hear of any accounts of Commonwealth forces killing prisoners. Possibly an indication of the way combat stress affected the men of the time - the Americans were further detached from the war, so it's brutality had more profound an effect on their psyche. British soldiers still remembered the bloodletting of the first world war and had a somewhat more....humanitarian approach to their adversaries? Or maybe not, I'm just going off a throwaway few clauses about the British Army in Decision in Normandy and Anzio (Carlo D'Est).

ALthough undoubtedly there were massacres by commonwealth troops they do seem to have an extremely clean record compared to everyone else.

[Elmar]

There does seem to be national tendencies towards this.
Not too surprising in more racist countries where a 'them and us' culture would be pre-existing it seemed to have been worse. The Germans and Japanese of course come to mind, with a staggering level of racism leading to a staggeringly widespread level of crimes towards POWs and civilians, often with the acquiescence of the higher ups. But the US seems to have had a rather unfortunate track record in this as well. Widespread murder of Arabs and Italians in particular showed a worrisome lack of discipline, though US command did try to quell it.
There were of course the Russians and Poles too, but to be honest I find it hard to hold it against them, both having a rather understandable grudge against their opponents. And the Japanese only had themselves to blame for what befell them, with gross brutality and repeated shenanigans with soldiers feigning surrender bound to lead to an reluctance to take Japanese POW.
There's also the Ghurkas who have been suspected of a number of killings. And there is their frequent cutting off of heads or ears of fallen opponents.
The Canadians get linked to a few high profile incidents too.

Curiously, for as deeply a racist state as Australia I don't really got an impression throughout my reading that there was any unusual frequency of killings.
In general commonwealth nations tended to be less prone to crimes. Perhaps a result of the more entrenched discipline in the army and the greater exposure to foreign countries for those who were professional soldiers.
And then there are the Italians, who generally seemed as happy to become a POW as to take one. I find it remarkable that they seem to get this good a reputation as discipline wasn't that great, and ill discipline breeds abuses. But in general the Italians seem to get out of the war fairly clean, with even the blackshirt divisions not unusually prone to abuses. I guess their heart really wasn't in that war. This cheery reputation doesn't go for the partisan and anti-partisan units where killings were the norm, as one expects in this form of combat.

[MaximiIian]

repeated shenanigans

That is, without a doubt, the best way to describe Japan's war crimes. I'm not even particularly kidding, either; I love understating things for the sheer sarcasm factor of it. It's ridiculously fun.

[Elmar]

That is, without a doubt, the best way to describe Japan's war crimes. I'm not even particularly kidding, either; I love understating things for the sheer sarcasm factor of it. It's ridiculously fun.

While understatement was intentional it was intended to only refer to the Japanese practises of pretending to surrender.

It is entirely too easy to understate the vile nature of WW2 Japan, and I feel that I'm somewhat lax for not puting the spotlight more firmly upon them.
They've by and large escaped the vilification that the Nazis got, but that's not at all deserved. The average Japanese soldier was right up there with the most heinous of the SS. They would not have the relatively benign reputation they enjoy today if they had a figurehead that was so caricaturishly evil as Hitler.
These days the Japanese soldier is frequently portrayed as a noble Bushido inspired samurai. Whereas the truth is that the typical Japanese soldier was a deeply racist xenophobe that time and again inflicted cruelty and violence on whomever was unlucky enough to fall within his power, be in civilian or combatant. The killing of POW wasn't just widespread incidents, it was pretty much the norm. Unless a soldier was part of some negotiated mass surrender your chances of surviving to even see a POW camp were slim. POW camps who themselves are infamous.
Japanese behaviour in China was particularly brutal and make the crimes on the Eastfront pale in comparison.

[Rolling Thunder]

Curiously, for as deeply a racist state as Australia I don't really got an impression throughout my reading that there was any unusual frequency of killings.

Firstly, because they were generally operating under the command of other Commonwealth forces, and secondly, because Australia simply did not have the manpower to be involved in that sort of thing.

And we do know about the allied war crimes. Strategic bombing may have started out as an effort to destroy industry, but it quickly became a race to see whom could kill the most civilians and inflict the most terror.

[Valandur]

Indeed, but in most cases, it was the SS that committed the massacres and executions, not the Wehrmacht.
Although there were probably thousands of cases where a regular German soldier would shoot a man with his hands raised above his head in surrender, that is the irony of war. There is going to be killing and that cannot be changed.
However, times when masses of prisoners were executed should be considered as War Crimes. On the Eastern Front, German Soldiers were to execute Commisars on the spot and thousands of prisoners were executed, also, most who weren't executed were basically condemned to death anyway.
But, the Russians were in some cases, just as bad. Thousands of German citizens were killed, just as thousands of Soviet citizens were killed, however, it is a well known fact that Soviets did not take SS as prisoners, also, after the Battle of the Bulge, Americans took no SS prisoners either.
Attrocities were committed throughout the war, on both sides. Discriminating against the Wehrmacht is pointless as it was a war, they did what they had to do.
But, unlike the SS, they did not murder, rape and execute for the fun and sake of it.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Discriminating against the Wehrmacht is pointless as it was a war, they did what they had to do.
But, unlike the SS, they did not murder, rape and execute for the fun and sake of it.

Not necessarily. It is far from certain that the Wehrmacht was an apolitical, neutral tool. Some historians argue, quite persuasively in my opinion, that it was thoroughly Nazified and consequently suitably brutal. If you're interested, I suggest looking at the work of Omer Bartov.


There's certainly no shortage of examples of gratuitous Heer terrors. I recall one incident where a single infantry division (the 707th, if memory serves), killed over 10000 people in just one month in Belarus.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Wehrmacht...thoroughly Nazified

if there was any German organisation that could be described as such it certainly wouldn't be the Wehrmacht. I can't think of a single HC officer apart from Milch who didn't rant about "the bohemian corporal" all the time. Of course they were all too cowardly to do anything about it. Of course many more junior officers were staunch nazis, something they reflected on their units.

The Wehrmacht was way too diverse to be labelled "nazified" or "clean". Many units commited terrible massacres, and many disliked the regime. Most seems apathetic.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

And we do know about the allied war crimes. Strategic bombing may have started out as an effort to destroy industry, but it quickly became a race to see whom could kill the most civilians and inflict the most terror.

Strategic bombing wasn't a war crime under even the current geneva

it directly affected the enemy's capability to wage war.

I would add my view to Rolling Thunder's that using airborne examples does not support your case. Airborne units, by the nature and disposition of their task, cannot afford to take prisoners. They are being dropped behind enemy lines with little heavy equipment, and can hope only to survive until friendly regular forces can relieve them - no operation depicts this more than Arnhem.

Airborne forces cannot afford to lose portions of their fighting strength guarding prisoners, and indeed cannot hold large numbers of prisoners due to the limited perimeters of control their formations exhert. The British perimeter at Arnhem, for example, was a bare few streets wide and long; I walked virtually the entire perimeter in about half an hour, and it only took that long because the streets and housing have completely changed. It may sound like an excuse, but airborne forces cannot afford to take prisoners. Perhaps some of the killings were due to anger at Germans killing their comrades, the effect of battle upon morale and psyche, but some can be explained as necessity - though not all.

I'm suggesting for a moment that Allied soldiers did not commit war crimes, killings or atrocities, but you have shown a rather glaring ignorance of airborne operations.

The 4 massacres all occured after XXX Corps arrived and after the assault accross the river.

And the 1st Airborne division took loads of prisoners that day (loads of SS too) even though it was in the most dire position any airborne unit has found itself in.

[Robert The Black]

Elmar, how can you say such a thing about Australia. On what do you evidence do you base the statement that Australians are deeply racist.

Curiously, for as deeply a racist state as Australia I don't really got an impression throughout my reading that there was any unusual frequency of killings.

.

[Elmar]

Elmar, how can you say such a thing about Australia. On what do you evidence do you base the statement that Australians are deeply racist.

I did not say that Australians are racist. But yes, at the time of WW2 Australia was pretty damn racist. Stuff like "The Stolen Generation" and the generally abysmal treatment of Aboriginals make me confident in saying that.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Elmar, how can you say such a thing about Australia. On what do you evidence do you base the statement that Australians are deeply racist.

australia was a rascist place in the 40s, like the south of the USA. Not that it was government sponsored but people were rascist.

Why does that insult you? Ireland was poor in the 40s, I don't feel insulted.

[MaximiIian]

Pretty much. The Axis powers were incredibly dickish, in oh so many ways.

TV Tropes is fairly spot-on in their assessment of World War II as a case of Black and Grey Morality. Both sides were epic trolls, but the Axis nations were far and away much worse.

[Darkhorse]

Dresden springs to mind. Not only did we hit it once, we went back the next day and hit it again. Dresden is a very sensitive issue however, like all strategic bombing. Although everyone was bombing everyone. Strategic Bombing on Germany stands out the most because it was so, almost too, effective at targeting German infrastructure. Although in this man's opinion, the cities were chosen on purpose to hit back for the Blitz, which truthfully I can understand why the British would go for it, and can understand how good it was for British civilian morale, especially in the first raids when London and other cities were being blitzed night after night, the government had to show that Germany wasn't invincible pre 1942/3, and strategic bombing was the best way to hit back. I completely agree with the hitting of industrial or strategic area's as this was vital to the war effort and arguably a rather large factor in our victory (that said the effectiveness of such bombings are debatable). Things did go wrong even with equipment such as Oboe and pathfinder aircraft/squadrons they often missed their targets considerably, but flattening Dresden for what officially was a road junction, dunno, just feels like an excuse to flatten a city.