The never ending 'Post Mortem"

[Professor Brensec]

I've been recently watching a new History Channel series about WWII called 'The War of the Century'.  8)

It goes into quite some detail about many aspects. The latest installment dealt with the Russian campaign and more specifically the battle for and seige of Moscow.

The official figure quoted in the series regarding how close the Germans came was 40 kilometres (about 25 miles). Very close indeed!  :o

They gave some figures and info dealing with Russian POW's that I wasn't aware of.
Apparently Hitler decided, after something like 1.5 million Russians were captured during the first few weeks, that they would 'do away with them' by a kind of 'systematic neglect'. This included starvation, disease and freezing etc.

They quoted a figure of 4 million Russian POW's dying in German captivity. I don't recall if that was for the entire war, or just up till Moscow!

There were interviews from veterans of both sides. Stories of terrible barbarism on both sides and also very touching tales of individual acts of kindness among enemies.
One German was under orders to 'summarily' shoot all Russian 'commisars'. he came across one and rather than 'murder him' (as he put it), he directed him back to his own troops, as he knew if he took him in, someone would shoot him and he would probably in trouble anyway.

Anyway, the amount of Russian prisoners taken by the Germans was absolutely staggering. Blitzkreig definitely worked very well in the oonset. I think it was more the winter that affected the Blitzkreig tactic more than the Russians retreating.
The reasons why Blitzkreig worked in surrounding 'pockets' of thousands, was that they couldn't retret fast enough to get away from the fast advancing armour and 'aerial' artillery.

After having seen this series, I still believe that had the Germans had only 3 or 4 weeks more of decent weather, the result in the East would have been very different.
I think the numbers and manufacturing capacity of tyhe Russians, against the supply problems and manufacturing limitations of the Germans would still have seen a Russian victory, but it would have taken much longer (I don't dare hazard a guess at how long - I don't know how people can calculate how muich loger these thing could have lasted, had one thing or another happened).  :o

Also I still believe that the story in the West would have been quite different for a while, had the Germans captured and held onto the oil fields in the Caucus'.  ;D

[Woodlouse2002]

I must say that although we talk about the barbarity of the eastern front, nothing is ever said about the barbarity of the pacific theatre. And i'm not talking about japanise treatment of allied prisoners. I'm talking american treatment of the Japs. Some American units were proud of the fact that they had taken no prisoners. Japanise trying to surrender were simply gunned down. And when they were dead, the americans plundered the corpses for gold teeth and jewelery. They even went as far as sending back skulls and other parts of dead japanise soldiers as souvineers and gifts back home. It's just disgusting. There were even reports of American tanks parading around with heads of japaninse soldiers stuck on to them.

[Redwing]

I must say that although we talk about the barbarity of the eastern front, nothing is ever said about the barbarity of the pacific theatre. And i'm not talking about japanise treatment of allied prisoners. I'm talking american treatment of the Japs. Some American units were proud of the fact that they had taken no prisoners. Japanise trying to surrender were simply gunned down. And when they were dead, the americans plundered the corpses for gold teeth and jewelery. They even went as far as sending back skulls and other parts of dead japanise soldiers as souvineers and gifts back home. It's just disgusting. There were even reports of American tanks parading around with heads of japaninse soldiers stuck on to them.

Somewhat astray from the original topic, but where did you come by this information, pray tell?

[WebbPA]

I, too, would like to see your sources on this.  As an American I am appalled that anyone would even suggest such activity.  I have seen film of American soldiers shooting flamethrowers into Japanese holes but I assumed, as the narrators have told me, that it was a last resort after the inhabitants refused to surrender.

[Hagar]

where did you come by this information, pray tell?

I, too, would like to see your sources on this.  As an American I am appalled that anyone would even suggest such activity.  

Read this. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,500631,00.html

Please remember that war itself is the atrocity. It can & does de-humanise ordinary decent people of all nations.

[Redwing]

Please remember that war itself is the atrocity. It can & does de-humanise ordinary decent people of all nations.

Very true!

I don't doubt for a moment that atrocities were committed by individuals or even groups of American soldiers acting on their own; I'm sure other similar acts were committed on all sides.

I've read several other posts by Woodlouse on other topics....he does seem to have quite an anti-American attitude (I notice he chose to recount only those alleged American acts of brutality). Also, the article itself, written by a British journalist for the "Observer of London", again focuses mainly on acts of barbarity by Americans (Mr. Burke, I've learned, also conducts interviews for the "Liberal Oasis" whose caption is "where the Left is right and the Right is wrong"....no hints of any bias there, eh?!).

Anyway, since Woodlouse offered us his entertaining account of American atrocities in the Pacific as a diversion, I guess I could divert to another war altogether. How about British atrocities in the Boer War, where innocent civilians were imprisoned in Concentration Camps, and where over 26,000 women and children died of starvation, disease, and medical neglect. Wonder what kind of propagandist spin "Woody" cares to put on that?

[Hagar]

I see no benefit in trying to turn this thread into a flame war. This would only serve to get it removed. PDQ

The reason I posted that link instead of many others I could have chosen is that it mentions British troops involved in atrocities. Also that it's about an old documentary (the article is dated 2001) shown on British TV so many people living in the UK will have seen it. I'm not sure it would have been shown in the US. The whole point is that no nation is exempt from this. It would be very naive to believe otherwise.

PS. It's worth remembering that the victors get to write the history books. The truth takes longer to emerge & sometimes never does. One side's hero could easily be the other's war criminal.

PPS. If you want the unbiased American perspective on this subject read this. http://www.skalman.nu/history/books-review-pacificrevisted.htm

"The Pacific War and the Fourth Dimension of Strategy" (pp. 41-56, 34 footnotes, four images) is written by Ronald H. Spector, who holds a Ph.D. from Yale University and teaches history at George Washington University. He served with the Marine Corps in Vietnam and is a major in the Marine Corps Reserve, and was an historian at the U.S. Army center of Military History. Among his major books is Eagle Against the Sun (1985) which made use of declassified British and American archival material.

Spector deals with the social and psychological dimensions of America's Pacific war strategy in evaluating the popular perceptions of the Japanese in the post-Pearl Harbor years. The "fourth dimension" of strategy derives from an article written by Sir Michael Howard (1979). After the "sneak attack" and the collapse of diplomatic negotiations, the American public considered themselves betrayed and regarded the Japanese as a treacherous, fanatic, heinous aggressors, and as "inhuman animals" deserving of extermination.

Spector argues persuasively that these stereotyped perceptions of the Japanese, enhanced by propaganda including cartoons, posters, motion picture films, etc., was pervasive in all levels and classes of American society. This, he contends, would lead ultimately to numerous American atrocities in the Pacific Theater of Operations, including the fact that a relatively few Japanese prisoners of war were taken by the Americans--especially the Marines. He also concludes that this perception also contributed to a "high risk" naval strategy in the Pacific and an American impatience to win the war quickly and decisively. After 7 December 1941, the American public was unified and ready to endure real sacrifices in order to defeat-- "punish and destroy"--the common enemy. This "exterminationist" rhetoric--a term borrowed from John Dower (1986)--had an impact on American strategy, since war planners realized that the American public was unlikely to support a lengthy war with Japan. Therefore, a psychological dimension was added to operational, logistical, and technological strategies. Dower (1986) writes more fully about these issues.

The same is true of all nations involved in WWI & WWII & most other conflicts before & since. The enemy soldier is often portrayed as brutal & subhuman in order to give the opposing troops & the general public an incentive to fight.

[Woodlouse2002]

I've read several other posts by Woodlouse on other topics....he does seem to have quite an anti-American attitude (I notice he chose to recount only those alleged American acts of brutality). Also, the article itself, written by a British journalist for the "Observer of London", again focuses mainly on acts of barbarity by Americans (Mr. Burke, I've learned, also conducts interviews for the "Liberal Oasis" whose caption is "where the Left is right and the Right is wrong"....no hints of any bias there, eh?!).

Anyway, since Woodlouse offered us his entertaining account of American atrocities in the Pacific as a diversion, I guess I could divert to another war altogether. How about British atrocities in the Boer War, where innocent civilians were imprisoned in Concentration Camps, and where over 26,000 women and children died of starvation, disease, and medical neglect. Wonder what kind of propagandist spin "Woody" cares to put on that?

I won't put any propagandist spin on any atrocities commited by anybody. Just because there is absolutly no excuse for them

The fact you must realise is history is written by the victors. Therefore you must dig pretty deep to get the dirt on those "history" chooses to ignor. I do not doubt that no american has written about atrocities commited by america. You very rarely find anything about British atrocities in the Boer war. If someone loses a war the the victor will always blame it all on them. They will dig up and exaggerate all they did just because they can.

Atrocities happen in all war, there is no denying that. But there is still no jutifying it. All nations try to cover up unfavorable things they have done. For example in Russia, when there was the arms race to get the biggest bomb possible, they had a little accident with an atomic device and blew up over 70 square miles of their country. Killing over 30,000 of their own people. So what did the government do? Nothing. They denyed that anything had happened and blamed the huge expanse of scorched country side to bush fires. This meant that no one knew about it intill the fall of communism.

Anyway, I chose to recount those american acts of brutality because it was extremely widespread and I only knew enough about those ones. Unlike some people around here I always make sure of what i'm saying before I say it. If i'd known more about British, australian or any other nations brutality then I would have gone on about them too.

[Professor Brensec]

Hey Woody, how come Britain and America get a captal 'B' and 'A' but australia only gets a small 'a'

Eh???    Eh????

I know it's only a typo, mate!  ;) - Someone has to try to inject a little levity into this thread, in our nice new History Forum.  ;D

With reagrd to the atrocities business. Unfortunately, WWII is often portrayed in light of the terrible atrocities that occured in all theatres both in civilain and military circles.

That's sad, because albeit very true that this conflict was marred by terrible acts on all sides, I'll say for the 100th time, I feel that it was the last War in which their seemed to be a clear moral 'purpose' and justification for the involvemnet of the Allies. At least in terms of popular opinion. People were fighting for the very freedom of the world, both in the Pacific and in Europe.
And there was certainly no doubt as to who were the aggressors.

This is of course, all History now, good and proper, long gone. I don;t doubt that British, American and Australian troops did aweful things to the enemy and sometimes there own.
I recall the film, "Saving Private Ryan", when they reach the top of the hill and there are Germans surrendering, they are summarily shot, and the perpertrators laugh about it (Cpt Miller, the nicest man in the world, looks dissappointed but does nothing about it!).
These men have just gone thru the hell of Omaha. They have seen their friends and countrymen blown literally to peices. They have seen young boys mown down mercilessly, over a stretch of sand. Of course they wabted to kill the 'bastards' who were responsible for starting this whole thing!
On the other hand, the Germans were following orders and defending their country, whether right or wrong, that's all they were doing.
Another GI yells out "Hold your fire! Let 'em burn!" when the Germans jump out of the pillbox on fire.

It's terrible that otherwise normal people are reduced to this sort of inhumanity in war, but it happens and no-one is really immune, if they are pushed to there particular limit.

I saw those two 'scenes' in Private Ryan and I didn't think any less of Americans because of the portrayal, because common sense dictates that they are but a couple of examples of the things many on all sides did.

The real guilty ones are the "How I won the war - by John Wayne" movies that gave the world the original impression of what war was 'supposedly' like for the 'good guys' (not Mr Wayne himself, but the producers and directors etc).

[Smoke2much]

I think you've got it spot on there Brensec.  The point of battle is to prevent the enemy from winning by destroying his ability to fight.  This is most effectively achieved through killing the enemy soldiers.

Half the battle is won if the enemy are terrified before you even fire a shot.  This causing fear is easily done by letting the enemy witness the fate in store for them if they resist.  Weapons like flame throwers and phospherous bombs are not particularly effective in comparison to high velocity lead, but their effects are much more terrifying and thus they are used.

All sides commit atrocities during war time.  Any person who believes that their country has not done so is in my opinion a little naive.

I'll give a few examples of British attrocities as I'm a proud Englishman:

The Boer War.  It's been mentioned already....

Small pox in blankets given to Native Americans

The shooting of Prisoners of War (WW1 and WW2).  I have met several veterans of WW2 who have openly admitted that captured Germans were "disapeared" at times.

The fire bombing of German cities in 1945.  There was no strategic need, it was a punishment for the German people, nothing more.

The introduction of the small caliber high velocity bullet.  It is designed to wound rather than kill and thus remove three men from the combat zone per shot.


The list is endless, a war is the legalised murder of people.  As has been stated before, all war is attrocity regardless of the moral justification.  

Will

[Redwing]

The fact you must realise is history is written by the victors.

What I realize (and it's been for more than a few of my 40+ years now), is that it's more the time and place you're living in that determines the version of history you're exposed to.

Most rational people know that much of history, particularly earlier history, is full of half-truths, quarter-truths, exaggeration, outright fabrication, etc., etc. (without the mass-media that we have today.....who knows what the hell really happened!)....(and not that today's paparazzi always gets it right either, especially much of that tabloid crap!!).

The real guilty ones are the "How I won the war - by John Wayne" movies that gave the world the original impression of what war was 'supposedly' like for the 'good guys' (not Mr Wayne himself, but the producers and directors etc).

The John Wayne war movies served as 'healthy propaganda' for Americans during WWII; they've long since been regarded as anachronistic by most Americans (at least above the age of 10 or so). On the subject of 'The Duke', I'll never forget seeing some old WWII doco about the Pacific war....I think it was about Guadalcanal. It featured interviews with surviving veterans of the battle. One old vet recounted how after the battle, John Wayne showed up; apparently just to make a patriotic, morale-boosting type appearance. This old vet said that the troops instantly began to boo and razz him! Even at that time, most of those soldiers had seen his movies, and after experiencing the real hell of war themselves, they regarded Mr. Wayne's movies as pure BS!

[Hagar]

What I realize (and it's been for more than a few of my 40+ years now), is that it's more the time and place you're living in that determines the version of history you're exposed to.

This is quite true, or more correctly, what the leaders of the place you're living in would have you believe. I've been interested in history, particularly the history of the 2 World Wars, for more than 40 years now. At first I believed all the heroic tales I'd been brought up on. When someone later suggested that some of these were not true but government propaganda I was offended & dismissed them as unpatriotic nonsense. When further evidence emerged, due to the relaxation of security restrictions on official documents, I was forced to admit that not only were they correct, but there were many more similar examples where the ordinary soldiers &

[Professor Brensec]

I agree with hagar and Redwing on both their last posts.

Hopefully, because of the releasing of documents that until quite recently, show the Allies as 'not quite so heroic and wholesome' in certain instances, and of course the likes of Movies like 'Private Ryan, Thin red Line, Pearl harbour (to a lesser degree), people old and young are beginning to see that war is nothing like it has been portrayed for decades by the media (especially television and cinema).

I only hope that this realisation, if it sinks in at all, will affect our future leaders to an extent where they won't be so ready to commit the lives of young men (and sometimes innocent civilians) to solve a problem.

Although i am mindful of the fact, that whilever tghere are the likes of your Hitlers, Mussolinis and I suppose your Bin Ladens and Husseins, there are always going to be times when the only option left is 'force'.
This is the sad part. there are some in this world who love and/or thrive on conflict, power and confrontation in the extreme. Whilst ever they have acces the the powerful positions, there will be these difficult times.  :(