Fury Review

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#82
The lucky Germans surrendered earlier. They got shipped to the US and even got paid to work (if they wanted), and even spend money in the stores. The poor saps at the end, including all the old men and kids, got treated like animals.

All nations committed war crimes in my opinion.

And anyone, especially someone that postures himself as some sort of 'Wargame Historian' is laughably out of touch if he thinks GI's did not shoot some prisoners. There are famous cases of the Airborne units bayoneting Germans to see what it was really like (they scream).
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#83
My sig is a quote.

Dorosh just threatens to put people on 'Ignore'...he just can't bring himself to it.
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
5,035
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Viet Nam
#84
The lucky Germans surrendered earlier. They got shipped to the US and even got paid to work (if they wanted), and even spend money in the stores. The poor saps at the end, including all the old men and kids, got treated like animals.

All nations committed war crimes in my opinion.

And anyone, especially someone that postures himself as some sort of 'Wargame Historian' is laughably out of touch if he thinks GI's did not shoot some prisoners. There are famous cases of the Airborne units bayoneting Germans to see what it was really like (they scream).
Yeah they're all the same, Commies, Nazis, democracies. I can't tell the difference.
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#85
I didn't say they were same. I can tell the difference.

If you surrendered to "The Americans", and they said "Ha, we are killing POWs today!"...would you rather be shot right off, starved in an open camp, tossed into a melting asphalt street by a firestorm, or irradiated?
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
5,035
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Viet Nam
#86
I didn't say they were same. I can tell the difference.

If you surrendered to "The Americans", and they said "Ha, we are killing POWs today!"...would you rather be shot right off, starved in an open camp, tossed into a melting asphalt street by a firestorm, or irradiated?
I never thought about it so I guess I don't know what I would do. Thanks for the lecture on American war crimes.
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#87
Well, thanks, but you are interrupting my line of thought...so...

One must be perceptive and see beyond what others tell you to see...as an example, this whole Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie breakup dealio...supposedly about the kids...the infidelities...her bad breath...his funk...etc.

Don't buy it...Its all because he said "HaHa, my WWII movie did better than your WWII movie"....the truth is out there....
 

Michael Dorosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,473
Likes
751
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
#88
Don is not saying that at all, but you try to make the separation from a 'Ruse d'gurre' and someone who is wearing an enemy uniform as a spy or just becuase he is cold and his coat as the bullets start to fly, or do you expect that once the men trying to carry out the 'Ruse d'guerre' have been made, that you allow them to remove the uniforms before you open up?
From WP:

(Otto Skorzeny) and nine officers of the 150th Panzer Brigade faced charges of improper use of U.S. military insignia, theft of U.S. uniforms, and theft of Red Cross parcels from U.S. POWs. The trial lasted over three weeks. The charge of stealing Red Cross parcels was dropped for lack of evidence. Skorzeny admitted to ordering his men to wear U.S. uniforms; but his defence argued that, as long as enemy uniforms were discarded before combat started, such a tactic was a legitimate ruse de guerre. On the final day of the trial, 9 September, Wing Commander F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas, recipient of the George Cross and the Croix de guerre, and a former British Special Operations Executive agent, testified that he and his operatives wore German uniforms behind enemy lines. Realising that convicting Skorzeny could expose their own agents to the same charges, the Tribunal acquitted the ten defendants. The Tribunal drew a distinction between using enemy uniforms during combat and for other purposes including deception. They could not prove that Skorzeny had given any orders to actually fight in U.S. uniforms.

oh and all sides shot POW during ww2, we in the west get all squirmy and try to underplay it as we won, but we did our fair share.
The point has never been that the Western Allies *never* shot anyone. The point is always that the Germans (and the Russians) made it a matter of policy to commit atrocities. I suspect there is quite a difference.
 

Proff3RTR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
5,079
Likes
612
Points
113
Location
Cornwall
#89
From WP:

(Otto Skorzeny) and nine officers of the 150th Panzer Brigade faced charges of improper use of U.S. military insignia, theft of U.S. uniforms, and theft of Red Cross parcels from U.S. POWs. The trial lasted over three weeks. The charge of stealing Red Cross parcels was dropped for lack of evidence. Skorzeny admitted to ordering his men to wear U.S. uniforms; but his defence argued that, as long as enemy uniforms were discarded before combat started, such a tactic was a legitimate ruse de guerre. On the final day of the trial, 9 September, Wing Commander F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas, recipient of the George Cross and the Croix de guerre, and a former British Special Operations Executive agent, testified that he and his operatives wore German uniforms behind enemy lines. Realising that convicting Skorzeny could expose their own agents to the same charges, the Tribunal acquitted the ten defendants. The Tribunal drew a distinction between using enemy uniforms during combat and for other purposes including deception. They could not prove that Skorzeny had given any orders to actually fight in U.S. uniforms.



The point has never been that the Western Allies *never* shot anyone. The point is always that the Germans (and the Russians) made it a matter of policy to commit atrocities. I suspect there is quite a difference.
the GC is very clear, if you are caught on the battlefield wearing the uniform of the enemy then you can expect little mercy, hence why anyone who does so is as far as i am concerned deserving of all he gets, same as you do not use an enemy wep unless it is 100% the only thing to use.
As to the Heer having a policy to commit atrocities, I do not know if it was official policy, out East for sure, it was a given, but against the west, I doubt it, even though both sides did so on a regular basis.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
5,035
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Viet Nam
#90
Yeah, I kinda thought the prisoner killing thing was unnessary because I stopped identifying with the hero, unless that's what the director was going for. I would think that not taking prisoners would ultimately lead to more casualties from increased fanatical resistance.
But then again there is a time and a place for everything. I read a story from WW1 where a soldier shot this surrendering German after he saw him kill his friend with a hidden pistol. "I aimed my rifle at him and filled him with the terror of death before I shot him in the stomach"
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#91
The war in the east had the Soviets not ratifying the Geneva Convention. It was also a conflict of extreme racial, ideological beliefs led by extreme dictators. I am actually surprised that either side did not use chemical or biological weapons. The Soviets used exploding bullets, for example, and the Germans quickly adopted equally brutal techniques. In many cases, not only were POWs shot or "liquidated", they were often tortured for information or amusement. All sides took POWs for information, of course. And both sides used the other's uniforms and equipment. In fact, there were units that acted as the enemy to gain a tactical advantage.

The transfer of certain German units to the west, after learning their warcraft on the eastern front, led naturally to an escalation of war crimes on both sides.

But the US Paratroopers in Normandy were, in many cases, raw troops but highly trained. And they wanted to see what killing a man was like. They got ripped on wine and calvados and acted without honor, like many young men do.

In other cases war weary troops, like the units in the Hurtgen battles, were in survival mode and the enemies lives were not worth risking their own lives. Even to walk them back to the rear.

By the time of The Bulge, and any German wearing any US gear after word of massacres took place, should not have expected any mercy. An anecdote is that some GIs took some Germans prisoner. They noticed they were wearing US combat boots. They forced the Germans to take them off and walk to the rear in socks. Given the weather, it was probably a certainty they would lose some toes. It didn't matter that they took them from a depot or some GI's feet; They were guilty.
 

Michael Dorosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,473
Likes
751
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
#92
Yeah, I kinda thought the prisoner killing thing was unnessary because I stopped identifying with the hero, unless that's what the director was going for. I would think that not taking prisoners would ultimately lead to more casualties from increased fanatical resistance.
But then again there is a time and a place for everything. I read a story from WW1 where a soldier shot this surrendering German after he saw him kill his friend with a hidden pistol. "I aimed my rifle at him and filled him with the terror of death before I shot him in the stomach"
Samuel Fuller tells a story (on the extras to the deluxe version of Big Red One) about a sergeant he knew personally who checked the weapons of German prisoners. If they still had bullets, he was okay with them. If they were out of ammo, he figured it meant they weren't sincere about giving up, and only did so because they ran dry. So he apparently gave them the works. Fuller was of course a paid story-teller, but a good one and I'd have no problem believing him.
 

Michael Dorosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,473
Likes
751
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
#93
the GC is very clear, if you are caught on the battlefield wearing the uniform of the enemy then you can expect little mercy
Can you provide the quote for the less educated among us?

Like many others you may be confusing he Hague Convention with the Geneva Conventions. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos mentions the Hague Convention.

Copies of the 1907 Convention are online:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...6739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.


hence why anyone who does so is as far as i am concerned deserving of all he gets, same as you do not use an enemy wep unless it is 100% the only thing to use.
The Hague Convention permits use of enemy uniforms, and says nothing about what anyone who does so may "deserve."

Incidentally, one American unit is known to have dressed in German helmets and overcoats in an attempt to capture a Rhine bridge intact. IIRC they were spotted and the bridge blown, so their mission was not a success.

As to the Heer having a policy to commit atrocities, I do not know if it was official policy, out East for sure, it was a given, but against the west, I doubt it, even though both sides did so on a regular basis.
If you're not aware of them, you should read up on the Commissar Order and the Commando Order. Both were forces-wide orders to kill unarmed enemy combatants. The former in force on the Eastern Front, the latter as a result of the raiding programme. Really the tip of the iceberg though. The killings committed by 1 LSSAH (and their cadre in the 12th SS) in Normandy, Malmedy, etc. resulted from that unit's standing orders in Russia.

As a comparison, the worst Canadians managed to do was order German prisoners shackled at Dieppe. When the detailed ops order was found on the beach, Canadian POWs were handcuffed in German prison camps in retaliation. The Canadian official historian was aware of one war crime in the NW European campaign, when the Arygll and Sutherland Highlanders of 4 Cdn Armd Div burned the town of Friesoythe as a reprisal for the death of their C.O. It was rumoured he was shot in the back by a civilian, but it turned out a German soldier had encountered the CO and killed him with his machine pistol.
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#94
Canadians also managed to do a bit of the old bombing, didn't they?

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
 

Proff3RTR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
5,079
Likes
612
Points
113
Location
Cornwall
#95
I am stating LOAC or Law of Armed Conflict, this is in accordance with articles within the GC, , I am not sure on the basis of the 'court' in the sense of the make up, but it can take place, it would all boil down to how both sides have behaved, if one side has been barbaric or has not shall we say, fought with a sense of right in their action as to how their men behave on the battle field I think little mercy would be shown. On the other hand, if both sides had done their utmost to keep the suffering to the bare minimum and had been as fair as you can be to your enemy in war, then maybe they would be given the chance and pushed down the POW line.
Now
Can you provide the quote for the less educated among us?

Like many others you may be confusing he Hague Convention with the Geneva Conventions. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos mentions the Hague Convention.

Copies of the 1907 Convention are online:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...6739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.




The Hague Convention permits use of enemy uniforms, and says nothing about what anyone who does so may "deserve."

Incidentally, one American unit is known to have dressed in German helmets and overcoats in an attempt to capture a Rhine bridge intact. IIRC they were spotted and the bridge blown, so their mission was not a success.



If you're not aware of them, you should read up on the Commissar Order and the Commando Order. Both were forces-wide orders to kill unarmed enemy combatants. The former in force on the Eastern Front, the latter as a result of the raiding programme. Really the tip of the iceberg though. The killings committed by 1 LSSAH (and their cadre in the 12th SS) in Normandy, Malmedy, etc. resulted from that unit's standing orders in Russia.

As a comparison, the worst Canadians managed to do was order German prisoners shackled at Dieppe. When the detailed ops order was found on the beach, Canadian POWs were handcuffed in German prison camps in retaliation. The Canadian official historian was aware of one war crime in the NW European campaign, when the Arygll and Sutherland Highlanders of 4 Cdn Armd Div burned the town of Friesoythe as a reprisal for the death of their C.O. It was rumoured he was shot in the back by a civilian, but it turned out a German soldier had encountered the CO and killed him with his machine pistol.

I am aware of the commissar order, but that was clearly in extremis, and as said out east anything went (this does not make it right in any way, but the East was something else, I think we can all agree on that). and should be taken in that context, as to the worst Canadian soldiers did, look at Normandy, reprisals against 12th SS for what happened on the 7th June went on for a long time (LOAC funily enough forbids Reprisals as a rule of thumb) both 12th SS & 3rd CID murdered each others men on many occasions.
 

Michael Dorosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,473
Likes
751
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
#96
I am aware of the commissar order, but that was clearly in extremis, and as said out east anything went (this does not make it right in any way, but the East was something else, I think we can all agree on that).
The Commando order was the same thing - it explicitly ordered that British commandos, even those who surrendered in the correct uniform, were to be executed.

The Germans had a death cult, basically. They shrouded it in language, but it was seen as a logical extension of their past history, dating to the Middle Ages really, that "partisans" and "bandits" etc. could legally be executed summarily. They had the same rules for their own soldiers, and executions for desertion numbered in the tens of thousands. By contrast, both Canada and the U.S. only executed one soldier apiece for military crimes, Eddie Slovik and Harold Pringle.

and should be taken in that context, as to the worst Canadian soldiers did, look at Normandy, reprisals against 12th SS for what happened on the 7th June went on for a long time (LOAC funily enough forbids Reprisals as a rule of thumb) both 12th SS & 3rd CID murdered each others men on many occasions.
The difference being that the Canadian chain of command didn't order any of these killings. The order to burn Friesoythe came from the division commander, Chris Vokes (and probably in character for him). If Canadian troops murdered POWs in Normandy, I tend to understand it was immediately following the heat of battle (or by simply refusing surrenders). By contrast, the Germans passed orders down the chain and willingly followed the orders, which were done after interrogations of the prisoners and in some cases where they had been removed to the rear. Mohnke's name features heavily, he was a battalion commander, but even divisional leadership had been implicated, most famously Meyer.
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#97
The Canadian commanders didn't order the rapes in Korea either. They were just garden variety Canadians raping civilians. I understand it was done both before, and after the heat of battle.
 

Proff3RTR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
5,079
Likes
612
Points
113
Location
Cornwall
#98
The Commando order was the same thing - it explicitly ordered that British commandos, even those who surrendered in the correct uniform, were to be executed.

The Germans had a death cult, basically. They shrouded it in language, but it was seen as a logical extension of their past history, dating to the Middle Ages really, that "partisans" and "bandits" etc. could legally be executed summarily. They had the same rules for their own soldiers, and executions for desertion numbered in the tens of thousands. By contrast, both Canada and the U.S. only executed one soldier apiece for military crimes, Eddie Slovik and Harold Pringle.



The difference being that the Canadian chain of command didn't order any of these killings. The order to burn Friesoythe came from the division commander, Chris Vokes (and probably in character for him). If Canadian troops murdered POWs in Normandy, I tend to understand it was immediately following the heat of battle (or by simply refusing surrenders). By contrast, the Germans passed orders down the chain and willingly followed the orders, which were done after interrogations of the prisoners and in some cases where they had been removed to the rear. Mohnke's name features heavily, he was a battalion commander, but even divisional leadership had been implicated, most famously Meyer.

I agree to some extent Michael, but Canadian troops did on several occasions shoot out of hand 'HJ' soldiers after the 7th June incidents, again, I can understand to a degree, although reprisals are not really allowed , I can understand if it happens as you are taking an objective, but to do so as was the case in several instances after the event is the same as what HJ did on several occasions.

The German soldier up to the end of WW2 had a different view of war, and war fighting than either Us Brits, you Canucks or our American allies, they viewed it as a serious business to be fought with utter ruthlessness until the other side was beaten, they went beyond what was acceptable in the west (especially units that had spent a long time in the east).

An American high ranking officer (no idea what rank) said at the end or near the end of ww2 that 'Until you have fought the Germans, you have not fought in a war'
The Romans always talked about the 'Furia Germanicus' and this carried on down the years.
End of the day, I have said this many times, ALL sides murdered each other, some more than others, some not as much, some as a matter of course, some as a 'heat of battle' result, either way, a war crime is a war crime, I do not care if you shoot 1 PoW or 100, you are still a war criminal and deserve to swing.

How ever this must be tempered with such instances as this:

Your Unit is attacking an objective (a bit of High ground say) the enemy holds on for dear life and hurts the attacking your unit bad, your unit starts to get the upper hand and moves in for the kill as it were, right at the last moment, the defenders who up until this moment have been fighting with every thing they have suddenly see all is lost and chuck their collective arms up in the air, just as your unit was in the process of launching the last assault that would over run the objective. Your men all worked up by seeing mates die around them and also built up into a killing rage as they have just launched the final assault instead of seeing an enemy, now see those self same men wanting to surrender and save themselves. The killing then starts, PoW as this is what they now are (by the letter of law) are being shot, this is understandable, if not acceptable, you can not expect to be allowed to kill the attacking enemy and right at the last moment before you are in turn killed chuck your hands up and surrender and get away with it.

I know what I would do as an NCO, I also know what I am expected to do as an NCO, the LOAC dictates that those men should be taken prisoner, what would you do?

any discussion on this subject is emotive, I would point to the Pacific campaign as a good example as how armies that in the norm were classed as civilised I.E the commonwealth and American forces soon returned in kind what the Japanese troops did to them, and I can not and would not blame them.
I have no Truk with anyone getting even with and adversary that habitually murders PoW or Civilians, you reap what you sow I think is the saying.
 

NUTTERNAME

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
2,031
Likes
41
Points
48
Location
N
#99
I would put the German systematic extermination of people (10 million) as at the top of the war crimes committed in the western nations. But, I would also put the civilian population center bombings of the US, British and Canadians air forces as up in the top five. A point has been made that having 'no quarter' can make the opponent fight harder, and even to the bitter end.

It is also true that German military units were used to help in relief efforts after these bombing raids. It doesn't take 'Furia Germanicus' to motivate troops that see German children and women and old people ripped to shreds or suffocated or burned alive. Perhaps some people think that soldiers fight for their uniforms or some inane idea like that. They fight for each other so they can protect their people.

The Germans were not going to capitulate as a nation. The German military was going down no matter what. The Bombing murders of civilians in population centers in 1945 was a war crime that far exceeds some rash or drunken privates executing unarmed enemies. It was murder 1 in its intent and actions. It killed the least guilty or militarily involved, and it did nothing to hasten the war's end but may have actually motivated the enemy to fight further against the western nations. It probably helped insure that the Soviets would grab even more of Europe.
 
Last edited:

Proff3RTR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
5,079
Likes
612
Points
113
Location
Cornwall
I would put the German systematic extermination of people (10 million) as at the top of the war crimes committed in the western nations. But, I would also put the civilian population center bombings of the US, British and Canadians air forces as up in the top five. A point has been made that having 'no quarter' can make the opponent fight harder, and even to the bitter end.

It is also true that German military units were used to help in relief efforts after these bombing raids. It doesn't take 'Furia Germanicus' to motivate troops that see German children and women and old people ripped to shreds or suffocated or burned alive. Perhaps some people think that soldiers fight for their uniforms or some inane idea like that. They fight for each other so they can protect their people.

The Germans were not going to capitulate as a nation. The German military was going down no matter what. The Bombing murders of civilians in population centers in 1945 was a war crime that far exceeds some rash or drunken privates executing unarmed enemies. It was murder 1 in its intent and actions. It killed the least guilty or militarily involved, and it did nothing to hasten the war's end but may have actually motivated the enemy to fight further against the western nations. It probably helped insure that the Soviets would grab even more of Europe.

Roosevelt ensured Russia grabbed more of western Europe than it should of.