Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Germany has and does bear that responsibility, and it does so to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the world -- including Israel, of which Germany happens to be Israels best ally in Europe.
But I'm wondering how this responsibility applies to German POWs? should we have killed them upon capturing them? Just trying to get clarification.
Not at all. I'm just never satisfied to let an argument of equivalence stand.
So you're saying that we didn't deserve to be mistreated, but the Germans did? I just need a bit of clarification.
Nope. Note the line I pulled out to reply to:
So both sides are guilty of these acts. Such as what happens in war.
I decry simple summations like this. If person A inappropriately touches someone's child, and person B punches him, and A punches B back, and B kicks A in the scrote, and A kicks B back in the scrote, they are in fact both guilty of "low blows", of course, and such things may happen in intense fights, of course, but I don't want to ignore the fact that none of that would have happened without the initial violation.
And I will say that in THAT context I feel a little less sorry for German prisoners who were treated unfairly than for Allied prisoners who were treated unfairly.
Not at all. I'm just never satisfied to let an argument of equivalence stand.
-dale
I agree. It's a pointless, historically deficient cliche (no, I can't be bothered with the acute accent) which attempts to rescue a certain side's reputation through a cherry-picking technicality.
Yes, both sides committed crimes - but that statement belies the difference in scale and frequency. The two sets of crimes are not in the same moral ballpark, tournament or league, but certainly in the same sport. Still, you wouldn't compare 3rd Division Barnet FC with Premiership Arsenal, now, would you?
The disparity in behaviour leads an unbiased observer to judge America to be 'rather good' and Germany to be 'very, very bad'. Of course, balance is always a good thing and one should refrain from "America = fantastic" and "Germany = baby-boiling evil," lest you be logically contradicted, but when people refute this, they hinge everything on a technicality of speech, where people hyperbolise to enhance the distinction.
By restricting discussion of the scale and frequency, you also invite the judgment "No Sh-t, Sherlock! Pointless comment!" upon the "both sides..." platitude.
I decry simple summations like this. If person A inappropriately touches someone's child, and person B punches him, and A punches B back, and B kicks A in the scrote, and A kicks B back in the scrote, they are in fact both guilty of "low blows", of course, and such things may happen in intense fights, of course, but I don't want to ignore the fact that none of that would have happened without the initial violation.
And I will say that in THAT context I feel a little less sorry for German prisoners who were treated unfairly than for Allied prisoners who were treated unfairly.
-dale
I don't think some 17 year old farm boy drafted at gunpoint into the Wehrmacht in 1945, and who is then captured, deserves mistreatment more than for any American POW -- provided he didn't commit atrocities. He's not "person A" in this sense and he didn't touch anyone's "child" either. Other Germans did. It might sound cliche, but America has a responsibility to make that distinction, and it does.
I don't think some 17 year old farm boy drafted at gunpoint into the Wehrmacht in 1945, and who is then captured, deserves mistreatment more than for any American POW -- provided he didn't commit atrocities. He's not "person A" in this sense and he didn't touch
He may not deserve it personally, he's basically paying for the past orders of his high command and the past behaviors of his fellow Germans.
As it's been said "That's war".
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
He may not deserve it personally, he's basically paying for the past orders of his high command and the past behaviors of his fellow Germans.
As it's been said "That's war".
Yes, that often is war, although American military doctrine specifically denounces it. To condone "revenge" killings on POWs is highly damaging to American values, American culture -- the idea of liberty and humanity etc etc.
"Winking" or turning a blind eye to atrocities is in effect, condoning those atrocities.
I decry simple summations like this. If person A inappropriately touches someone's child, and person B punches him, and A punches B back, and B kicks A in the scrote, and A kicks B back in the scrote, they are in fact both guilty of "low blows", of course, and such things may happen in intense fights, of course, but I don't want to ignore the fact that none of that would have happened without the initial violation.
And I will say that in THAT context I feel a little less sorry for German prisoners who were treated unfairly than for Allied prisoners who were treated unfairly.
-dale
I agree with you on that. But I still think it's a little above us to stoop down to that level of depravity. Hopefully we won't be put into a situation to repeat our errors.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
I don't think some 17 year old farm boy drafted at gunpoint into the Wehrmacht in 1945, and who is then captured, deserves mistreatment more than for any American POW -- provided he didn't commit atrocities. He's not "person A" in this sense and he didn't touch anyone's "child" either. Other Germans did. It might sound cliche, but America has a responsibility to make that distinction, and it does.
Fine, I didn't say he did deserve mistreatment. I said that I feel a little less sorry for him than I would others if he does get mistreated, simply because of the side, and therefore the cause, that he served.
Hopefully the scale of the slaughter will never be repeated.
I disagree.
This entire notion of "Clean" war has been the single worst enabler of unjustified half-assed limited wars that has ever come down the pike.
If you pull a gun, then shoot to kill, or do not shoot at all. Shooting to wound is just plain stupid, and results in the target(and others) holding a grudge for a very long time.
The disparity in behaviour leads an unbiased observer to judge America to be 'rather good' and Germany to be 'very, very bad'. Of course, balance is always a good thing and one should refrain from "America = fantastic" and "Germany = baby-boiling evil," lest you be logically contradicted, but when people refute this, they hinge everything on a technicality of speech, where people hyperbolise to enhance the distinction.
I would submit that Germany WAS (jewish) baby-boiling evil.
Just ask any of the countless child victims of the Angel of Death.
The Germans are lucky we left any of them alive....and so are the Japs.
I don't think some 17 year old farm boy drafted at gunpoint into the Wehrmacht in 1945, and who is then captured, deserves mistreatment more than for any American POW -- provided he didn't commit atrocities. He's not "person A" in this sense and he didn't touch anyone's "child" either. Other Germans did. It might sound cliche, but America has a responsibility to make that distinction, and it does.
He DOES deserve mistreatment for not deserting, or trying to emmigrate, or actively resisting the Nazis or the seat of power.
That 17 year old farm boy is every bit as guilty as the military and the nation that all his hard work and sweat fed for as long as he farmed to- in effect- fed the nazis.
Give me a pistol and orders, and i'd gladly shoot that 17yo "innocent" farm boy in the face- without so much as a second thought.
I swear, i just dont understand some of you people...
Yes, that often is war, although American military doctrine specifically denounces it. To condone "revenge" killings on POWs is highly damaging to American values, American culture -- the idea of liberty and humanity etc etc.
"Winking" or turning a blind eye to atrocities is in effect, condoning those atrocities.
Horseshiit.
You don't want me to kill your farmers? DONT EFFING ATTACK MY COUNTRY!
I agree with you on that. But I still think it's a little above us to stoop down to that level of depravity. Hopefully we won't be put into a situation to repeat our errors.
It is NO error to seek revenge or retribution, aka, "Justice."
Fine, I didn't say he did deserve mistreatment. I said that I feel a little less sorry for him than I would others if he does get mistreated, simply because of the side, and therefore the cause, that he served.
Not only does he DESERVE mistreatment, but his home should be fire-bombed and his family burned to a crisp in the firestorm that follows.
Anyone who does not like my views on "Justice", i highly reccomend you never wrong me.
Snipe,
You should stop with the ambiguous, wishy washy posts. Why don't you stop sugar coating everything and tell us how you really feel!
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
VE day. Germany is defeated. The Japanese are all but.
Patton gets his wish and a war with the Red Army starts.
How does it play out?
1 - Pres Truman tells Russia to withdraw to her pre-war borders
2 - Stalin drags his feet
3 - B-29 fleet deployed in Europe
4 - Stalin thinks "they'd never nuke us....would they..."
5 - Western Allies issue ultimatum to Stalin - "withdraw or face the consequences"
6 - Stalin chickens and withdraws...
Sadly the above scenario never happened, it was the West that chickened, thereby condemning half of Europe to Soviet occupation for the next 50 years..
This entire notion of "Clean" war has been the single worst enabler of unjustified half-assed limited wars that has ever come down the pike.
Are you saying that ANY war the United States is involved in REQUIRES us to try to kill every single living soul of that country? Vast fleets of helicopters roaming the North Vietnamese countryside and shooting ALL humans they can find? (I'm responding to your "You don't want me to kill your farmers? DONT EFFING ATTACK MY COUNTRY!" comment.)
The Germans are lucky we left any of them alive....and so are the Japs.
If you had the power to go back in time, and had the power to influence events, would you then make the decision to kill all the Germans and Japanese?, just curious.
It is NO error to seek revenge or retribution, aka, "Justice."
Your version of justice perhaps. The "justice" you're proposing is the very thing that destroys nations, such as ours. Would the US have been the beacon of liberty during the cold war had we systematically exterminated anyone with a German accent in 1945?
Not only does he DESERVE mistreatment, but his home should be fire-bombed and his family burned to a crisp in the firestorm that follows.
I'd rather America didn't become that which it fought so hard to defeat. My father was born in Germany in 1942, I'm glad he avoided "justice", for obvious reasons lol.
Do you dislike modern, individual Germans and Japanese because of the sins of their grandfathers? just curious
He DOES deserve mistreatment for not deserting, or trying to emmigrate, or actively resisting the Nazis or the seat of power.
That 17 year old farm boy is every bit as guilty as the military and the nation that all his hard work and sweat fed for as long as he farmed to- in effect- fed the nazis.
Give me a pistol and orders, and i'd gladly shoot that 17yo "innocent" farm boy in the face- without so much as a second thought.
I swear, i just dont understand some of you people...
Wow, that was a fine, slightly warped statement. I don't think I understand you either.
But, according to your statement, how is not also YOUR responsibility to desert if you received orders to murder a German prisoner, since it is morally wrong? Your statement contradicts itself.
Comment