Grandman-
I've seen the frickin documentation with my own eyes man!  No, I didn't tape it for you, but I will next time it shows on the History Channel.  It was on Cable TV for cryin' out loud!  This is not some "my grandfather said this..." story.  Real Signal Corp footage, filmed by the Army, released by the Army five or so years ago.  Until they replay the show again, I won't have a chance to PROVE it to you, even though thousands of others have seen the exact same footage.  

I suppose it's easier for you to just call me a "Marxist" or "foolish" because I've provided an eyewitness account of footage and don't have the actual tape in my hand.  I'll mail you a copy if I ever get a chance to tape the show.  

And yes I was educated in a public school.  I find your reference to that degrading and unbecoming of a poster that I usually respect (even if I disagree with frequently), let alone a moderator of this board.

Until I have the chance to copy the footage, I guess you can call me whatever names you feel like.

Ross

Post from fight4yourrights -

Not in the least, although some on this board appear to think that American atrocities = Axis atrocities = Soviet atrocities = whatever.

I was being facetious in that post! I doubt that the opposing view can muster 100 incidents of American GIs shooting surrendered German troops!

How many surrendered Germans do YOU believe were shot by trigger-happy American GIs?

Eric The(GodWas'NichtMitIhnen'InThatWar)Hun[>]:)]

Post from Ross -

Don't worry about the film, Ross, just how many surrendered German soldiers were gunned down by American troops during the incident related by the History Channels' documentary? 100s? 1000s?

We need to have numbers, else we are talking about something that happened so rarely that only a true liberal would dare to bring it up!
You know, like Spielberg.

Eric The(I[u]Can[/u]HandleTheTruth!)Hun[>]:)]

If its in the paper or on TV, it is the truth.
[;)]

It was meant to be degrading - to the public schools.

Frankly, you are a "victim" (in the noblest of senses) of the public school systems. They are a Marxist creation. And don't think for a minute that the Marxists aren't pulling the strings today. They wouldn't have bothered creating the public schools if they didn't intend to use them as "re-education camps."

OK - so I didn't treat you with kid gloves. We're all adults here, right??? And how am I supposed to treat people who puts words in my mouth? I NEVER said that these things NEVER happened.

I just see someone (even with honest intentions) parroting these Marxist lines, and am quite SURE the Marxists are thrilled to hear it. And ultimately, that endangers my right to own firearms.

Franlky, I don't care WHO contributes to endangering my Second Amendment freedoms. I take a dim view of it.

Grandman-
Sure, the Germans may have just blasted their best buddy or whatever.  I have no problem with that.  But they weren't running away or anything.  They were standing in plain view, empty hands in the air, one of the three waving a white piece of cloth bigger than a handkerchief, but smaller than a bed sheet.  Seems pretty plain to me what their intent was.  

As far as what happened before or after, it's anyboyd's guess and I won't second guess the man on the ground.  As I said, American GIs were just as human as anyone.  It's just that the prevelant view of us doing no wrong in WWII is incorrect.  Close, but just not quite 100%.

I remembered it because it was the first time I had seen the footage (and most of the footage I've seen from WWII, I've seen before), and it had just been released by the Army then.  It lasted a whole 5 seconds, and may not have been caught by many with no military background.



Who are you refering to as "some people" and "them"?  Maybe you should come straight out and say what you mean instead of hinding behind inuendo like that.  I served this country in the Army for ten years.  I've buried firends that died in combat.  I've dug body parts out of aircraft pieces.  Ten percent of my flight class died serving their country and I came damn close to buying that farm many a time.  I WAS the one who has stood up for that freedom you enjoy.  

So, are you refering to me as "some people"?

Ross

Oh, it was only three!  Certainly not the thousands exterminated by the Nazis, or even the large number of Americans slaughtered by the SS in the Battle of the Bulge.  You and I appear in agreement that this is not a systemic thing with the US military.  Even the long ahrd road in Vietnam only produced one incident of a large scale atrocity, and that was more a function of leadership failure than anything else.  

I bring it up because many have to be reminded just what real war is about.  It's not about winnning the good fight, or any of that other crap that gets fed to the public.  It's about coming back home no matter what.  Sure, there's underlining objectives, but in the small sense it's about survival on the battlefield.  To ignore that even one enemy pirsoner is killed, is to ignore the truth.  That thruth is that a human will do what they have to on the line.  

While Spielberg may have brought it up for his liberal agenda, I'm glad it's there.  It should be there as a reminder that it's not all "play by the rules" on either side.  Not anymore than anything in real life is.

Ross

Ross
Could you explain to me how the concept of right and wrong correlates with being dragged into a war against an aggressor?
I always thought war was the result when the two sides couldn’t agree on what was right and wrong.

To Garandman and Eric The Hun...


CALM DOWN BOYS.....


Us noting that Germans who were surrendering or fleeing does not, repeat DOES NOT make us anti-American or anything else Senator McCarthy would not approve of. It just means we understand these things happen and that no one is perfect in wartime. Most of us don't even fault the USGIs for shooting "these" Germans, and if put in the same situation many of us might do the same.

My Grandfather was on a B24 crew and they "accidentally" mis IDed a target and bombed the Vienna Opera House. It was not a military target. I acknowledge it happened because I am honest. I do not point it out to show how evil my Grandfathers crew was. It's war, it ain't pretty and these things happen.

But what is TRULY offensive is the suggestion that we pretend it DID NOT happen or that we not talk about it. That would seem to suggest we did something wrong or innappropriate. During war, very few things qualify.

My words were VERY carefully chosen NOT to assume you were part of "them."

If you wanna call that "hiding behind innuendo" then go ahead.

Whether you are among those who either willing or unwittingly wish to smear Americas good name is entirely up to you. I cannot possibly know your heart. But my experience has been that its is one of these two -

1. Marxists with clearly stated intent to destroy America.

2. Those educated in the Marxist public schools who for whatever reason just don't know any better.

I'm hoping you are from category # 2. Only then is there some hope for you.

Is that clear enuf for you?????

You gotta see it from my perspective - repeating Marxist propaganda endangers my right to own firearms. Therein lies my passion for this topic. This is as calm as I get on this one. [:D]







Good. I hate opera. [}:D]

Bombing an Opera House from 10,000 feet IS NOT equivalent to murdering prisoners of war, so I don't see it as relevant here. Heck, were it me with anti-aircraft fire coming up at me, I'd be lucky if I didn't bomb the White House. [:D]

Gentlemen, stop the bickering, please. I don't think it's anyone intention here to make the American GI out to be the bad guy of the war.  In the scenes that were depicted in the film, where the one GI was talking to the prisoner, and then walks away to hear another basically faceless GI shoot the German prisoners, WAS in the book written by Dr. Ambrose. The book is the "oral history" of the events that occured as they are remembered by those who were there. I for one was not there and I highly doubt anyone on this board was either.  

The point I think that is trying to be made here is that atrocities occured on all sides of the war, some more heavily weighted towards certain armies or units than others. But they happened just the same. As far as your wanting documentation, the "my grand father said" or in my case "my father said" stuff is mostly what is out there. The book this film is based on is the "said" stuff, hence "oral history".  

As an example, My dad was a Company Commander (Captain). After an engagement with germans, he was approached by soldiers in his unit along with some infantry who reported they had a captured and wounded german officer. The german was "asking" to commit suicide or be killed because he did not wish to be taken prisoner and he felt his wounds were severe. The response from my father was to leave him behind, after they gave him some morphine and bandaged his wounds. When medics and MP's followed they would police him up and take care of him in the appropriate fashion if he was still alive. (point being don't kill him, he is now in our custody. Very much like a police officer making an arrest of an injured person, you can't just kill the person.)

To make a long story longer, as the unit prepared to move out the odd angry shot rang out. Upon investiation my father found the german officer dead. Who killed him? Who knows. Was my father angry, yes. could he prove who did it no, even though he had his suspicions. However the thinking was different then than today. It was also a time of war. Even though what happened was wrong, my father was more angry that someone dis-obeyed his orders and violated the rules of engagement.  Would he have brought charges if he could have. Yes. Did he condone what happened? No. Did he loose sleep or cry over the dead german? No. It was just a matter of fact that it happened.

The point is did things happen that shouldn't have, yes they did. Does Hollywood need to keep pointing that out? I don't think so.  But just like anything else, people tend to bring up things to harp on depending on thier views.  Again I will cite Law Enforcement as an example, both in the media and on this board as being a whipping post depending on your personal views.

But as far as this movie goes, it seems to be following the book prety faithfully. Not to mention they used the real men that are portrayed as technical advisors to the film. So far I haven't heard one of them say the film or the book is wrong.

I agree that warcrimes were committed by American troops, though seldom and almost non-existantly compared to Axis troops and Russian troops.  I have a bit of evidence to offer.  I heard 1st hand from two WWII vets, one a highly decorated veteran of the 3rd Army and the other from Airborne, that they killed SS troops on sight after the Battle of the Bulge whether they were surrendering or not.  Neither of these gentlemen were given to boasting and the 3rd Armored vet was very highly decorated (5 Bronze Stars!).  Apparently, at the Bulge, the SS had killed some GIs that they took prisoner and then decided they didn't want to supervise.  After that got out, some Americans followed a "no mercy" policy on SS troops.  Was it official policy? No.  Was it common? No.  Should it have happened?  I can't bring myself to cry over the death of fascists, communists, or any totalitarians.

OK, I didn't really think much of it either, but I didn't see it as much more than a factory to turn out kids to a minimum standard of education.  Certainly not some Marxist re-education camp.



And just what Marxist lines are those?  I've stated the truth.  How can the truth hurt the Second Amendment?  Will the truth that GIs were human affect the Second Amendment?  I think not.  If anything, it makes it stronger because it shows that humans are humans, no matter what.  With all the failings that go along with it, and that protections are required.  

So, just what Marxists lines have I been parroting?



I guess their effective re-education was why I joined the Army at 17, even though I was accepted to a University, because I believed that Communism had to be stopped (this was back in the Cold-War now, so please allow for time shift of attitudes).  If being a victim is putting my life on the line for the freedom I beleive in, then I guess I'm a victim.

Ross

Post from Ross -

Absolutely! And I respect you for your service!

But I also respect the US Infantryman in WWII, as well, and any attempt to hint, suggest, or intimate that HE was just as guilty of such conduct as HIS German/Japanese counterpart is B.S., pure and simple.

And it's such a steaming load of B.S., that to even make mention of it serves SOMEONE's evil purpose.  So now we have two (2) scenes from Spielberg movies that contain instances of G.I.s shooting surrendered Krauts!

Doesn't it kind of make you wonder? I mean how many scenes were there in either production that portrayed Nazis murdering captured G.I.s?

I've read Stephen Ambrose's books on D-Day and beyond and he seldom dwellt on the subject much at all. On pg. 32, of [i]Citizen Soldiers[/i], he recounts one NCO firing a BAR on some disarmed prisoners in a trench, on pg. 47 a wounded German is shot, pg. 105 tells of some Polish soldiers executing German p.o.w.s, and there is an extended passage on pgs 351-355.

Did it happen? Of course, but I think that it's simply not the case that there was a wholesale slaughter of surrendered Krauts by the G.I.s.
   
Eric The(Now,OnTheEasternFront,However...!)Hun[>]:)]

I think Ambrose included this in the book to illustrate that such behavior was the exception and not the rule.Execution of prisoners was pretty much a result of individual actions and not a policy. Unlike the massecre at malmedy where surrendered US troops were summerily lined up and shot.The US has a history with POWs that once removed from the front they were treated pretty evenhandedly. Not so lucky were US troops captured by the Japanese.

In the big picture, war is a form of politics.  It's a method to achieve a political objective through force.  Or politics by other means.  The Nazi goal was world domination.  Eventually they resorted to force to achieve this (even though for quite a while they got what they wanted without it).  The US had a goal of preventing this.  Once we began to use force, it's a matter of might makes right.  

There's really no right and wrong in the political sense (in the moral sense there certainly is, but politics are a different matter).  There are conflicting political goals that results in friction between two opponents.  That may or may not result in war.  A country is really not "dragged" into a war.  It makes a decision that force is required to meet it's political objective.  

Morality is a different story.  Since warfare is a political tool, it reflects the beliefs and political realities of it's country.  We were a democracy, and one that on the whole was morally right.  The Nazis were morally corrupt, and their actions reflected that(These are only my opinions).

On the small scale of the platoon and squad, what really matters is getting it over with and surviving to get home.  While the big picture doesn't get lost because your objectives and goals are being handed down from higher, the driving force at the small unit is your loyalty to each other and your desire to take care of your "family" i.e. "Band of Brothers".  Guys don't jump on grenades for their country.  They do it to save their fellow soldiers.  When your "bother" gets killed, you get pissed,  just as you do in "the world".  To expect a human to not act on these emotions is not realistic.  The concept of "right and wrong" does not get lost.  It's just human behavior that eventually rules the battlefield.

As such there are statutory rules (like Army Regs, Law of Land Warfare, Geneva Convention, etc) that all influence a ethical decision.  Other factors are you moral beliefs and those of the country (for instance, Germans would take far better care of Anglo-American prisoners than Slavic ones, because that was the Nazi outlook), and those pressures brought upon you by battlefield expiedeincy and your fellow soldiers.  Religion and other beliefs can play a large part as well.  So in the end you wind up deciding just what is right and wrong on you own.  Every second of every day on the battlefield.  For the most part, Americans have been trained, raised, indoctrinated, re-educated (take your pick) to make very sound decisions on the battlefield.  

It sounds like chaos, and that's what it really is.  In the end, the American GI has nearly always risen to the occasion when a correct decision was required.  

Warfare tends to be avoided by countries because of expense and because once the policy makers give a 19 year old a rifle and bullets, he's now the policy maker.  They've lost control of the situation and can mearly direct.  They have to rely on that 19 year old "policy maker" on the ground to get it done.  

Ross

Anyone keeping tabs on how many times Garandman uses the term "marxist"?  

Garandman, relax a little.  Ross was making a point that it happened.  I don't remember you saying it did not.  I think you both agree that it did, but that it was not commonplace, right?

I know Ross and there is no need to attack his educational background nor his patriotism; both are squared away.

Where did you go to school, the McCarthy Institute?

The "equivalency" of any "atricities" committed by American GI's, which by ALL acoounts were scare, with the regular and widespread atrocities committed by German and Japanese soldiers. Pure Marxism.

The intended desire of the marxist is to say that there is no difference between America, and any other nation of the world in the arena of morality. Therefore, Americas gun ownership and First Amendment and relative freedom are all bunk and should be done away with becasue Americans are evil like anyone else.

Now, if it will make you feel better....

I will concede that in a generation or two, as America continues its departure from personal responsibility and individual accountability, from moral absolutels and the praise of that which is right and the censure of that which is wrong , it is quite possible that American war atrocities will parallel those of Germany and Japan in WWII.  In short, as America continues to progressively reject God, it WILL INDEED be no better than the rest of the world.

Historically, the worlds greatest atrocities have been committed by atheists who have freed themselves of God's rules of right and wrong. (For the record, there are atheists who are quite good and moral people, tho for the life of me, I cannot figure out why they would bother being moral people, if there is no God to ultimately account to.)

And yes, MANY of these people who committed these atrocities, have claimed God to be on their side, tho even a superficial understanding of God would reject that notion as completely silly.

The point here is that America begins to rival socialist Germany and pagan Japan in their treatment of God as Supreme, there is nothing I can see that would bar Americans from committing the atrocities that were commonplace during WWII by the Nips and Jerries.

It is intentional, Steve.



What I "hear" is the old "moral equivalency" crap, which as yet, I have NOT heard Ross reject. AS I said before, I equate the parroting of Marxist ideology with the Marxist design to take away my guns. Whether my guns are taken away thru intentional, or unwitting, repetion of Marxist ideology makes little difference to me.

what I want is some proof that Ross (or anyone else here, for that matter) is rabidly anti-Marxist. Gimme that, and I will shut up.




I'll concede you know him better than I do. So, I CANNOT in good conscience "pass judgment" here. But LOTS of people have LOTS of different defintions of "patriotism." And I live by the old saying "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks liek a duck, you better get some solid assurance that it a'int a duck." Especially when that "duck" was educated in a Marxist institution.



Is this a serious question, or just a shot to "get even?" Its so hard to tell and determine inflection in these internet forums.

Kinda like how hard it is to tell whether or not ALL those Germans "butchered" by the Americans were REALLY surrendering. [rolleyes]

That fact is you're as wrong as can be.

How can the truth be a smear against America?  Only to those who's faith in their country is not strong enough to accept it.  

Evidently your experience is lacking as I have merely stated the truth.  I wouldn't think that would bring me into either of those two camps of Marxism.  More of one who can make decisions for himself and recognize the truth for what it is.  I would think you would hope I'm from neither Marxist category, rather than #2.  

I've also noticed that every time you get into a debate, you start with labelling everyone against you a Marxist, Liberal, Feminist, etc.  You should be strong enough to argue your point without those tactics.

As for your innuendo, I'm the only one you're debating with.  This is not the first time you've resorted to using labels in "quotes" rather than coming straight out and saying what you mean.  I'll leave it to the board to decide who you were referring to.

My experience is that people who use "quoted" labels instead of just saying what they mean are:

1. Spineless and unwilling to say what they mean.

2. Too worried that they'll be acting wrong if they speak their mind.

3. Genuinely concerned that they don't want to offend someone and mistakenly think that will soften the blow.

I'm hoping you're from category #3.  Only then is there some hope for you.

Clear enough for you???

Ross

editied to run the spell checker only.

Gee, I don't remember asking you to categorize me. But thanks for the heads up.

I use intentionally "inflammatory" words, 'cuz they are the best way I know to cut thru the bull, and get to the heart of the matter. To cut thru the pretense, and get down to causality and ideology.

I'll take your word that you are whatever it is that you say you are. My only desire is to let you know what you SOUND like, and get you to think about that.

I'll assume your desire is same.

Bombers and their escorts would be high enough to make contrails, WWII para's wouldn't go over 10,000 so they didn't need the O2. The lower you jump the less time the guys already on the ground have to shoot at you.

That's pretty hypocritical of you considering you have spent most of this thread categorizing Ross and others.
You and Eric need to find a pharmacy and take about 100cc's each of reality.  

Well I believe the Germans and Japanese SYSTEMATICALLY shot surrendering troops.

On the east front Germans and Russians both believed that you had an "option" to decline the offer of surrender........by killing the surrenderee. Except for the SS both sides also believed that once you took prisoner you were responsible for them. The SS felt they could shoot POW's once they took them, kind of a tardy declining of the surrender. SS were very rarely taken prisoner by the Russians.

US troops probably shot more than a few Germans that were trying to surrender, but it wasn't a systematic response. It was individual soldiers, in the heat of battle.

I think the situation may have been more severe in the Pacific. The Japanese would booby trap their wounded hoping that Americans would try to take a wounded soldier prisoner.........KA-Boom. That happens once or twice and they would only find dead soldiers, no wounded ones here.

Guys, would ya calm down with the arguing and think about this.

You're 18 years old.  The Japanese have recently attacked Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of your fellow Americans/soldiers.  You're put on a ship and sent halfway around the world to stop a massive force that is threatening your country, your family, and your way of life.  No matter what unit you are part of, you have seen men you know, men you were just talking to, blown apart.  Would you have any mercy for a man who surrenders because he is out of ammo or knows he has no chance against several soldiers.  Just seconds before, this man was trying like hell to kill you and your fellow man.  But, oh wait, you guys killed all my buddies so I'll just give up.  I would have no sympathy for these men.  In a situation like Iraq, where the men were walking up with arms raised, I can see taking prisoners.  You're talking about the heat of battle.  This man you let live will most likely wait for you to turn your back, grab the nearest weapon and kill you and as many as he can before being killed himself (it's what I would do).  

That's why I ask you, what would you do in the same situation?  I personally would shoot them and never think twice.  Certainly cicumstances are sometimes fitting for the capture of prisoners, just not in the heat of battle.

Actually, that's pretty poor reading on your part.

I gave some generic categories based on my experience, being careful to SPECIFICALLY NOT isinuate that the person I was posting to was in a specific category.

THEN HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME TO CATEGORIZE HIM. SO I did.

Converesly, I never asked for his opinion as to what category I was in.

In fact, he decided to interrupt a conversation I was having with someone else (kinda like you a re doing now) , and put words in my mouth, claiming I made statements and assumptions I never made.

So he inserted his nose, and I promtly tweaked it.

Now, what will you have me do to your nose?? [;)]

I'm with you Cypher214.

EXACTLY my thoughts.

-SNIP- you should have stopped here.



Next time save the bandwidth and just say, "bullshit", and stand by the original insults; it's more honest.



Good God man, this was a joke!  Do you really take yourself that seriously.  Please tell me you are joking; you need to observe "inflection" to discern a joke?  

Sad, so sad.

I don't recall requesting you categorize me, but you did anyway.  I did not do so until you resorted to it.  "Do unto others" and all.

I've noticed that many people, to include yourself Garandman (see I don't use "some people") use the "get you to think about that" when they start back-peddling to get out a situation that they know they shouldn't have gotten into.  Every troll on this board does it when they start stuff and then comes back with "well, it was just to get you to think".  Please behave as you should in the first place.

I have no proof that I'm an anti-Marxist.  I suppose I'll have to send that with the film footage.  I suppose the fact that an American flag and a Declaration of Independence hung from my wall (along with a captured Jap Arisaka) when I was a boy means nothing.  I suppose enlisting when I was 17 when I could have been fat, dumb and happy means nothing.  I suppose a wall full of plagues, medals, an Officer's Commission, and various other mementos mean nothing.  I suppose being on both the DMZ and the IGB (that's Inter-German Border for those not in the military) means nothing.  I suppose the print of a UH-1H (what I flew) hanging in my living room signed by all of my subordinates and given to me when I PCS'd (and was a surprise, because they usually didn't do that) means nothing.  I supposed the bits and pieces of me left, by accident, around the world defending this country and others against Communism means nothing.  I suppose the dead friends doing the same thing I did (only their luck ran out) means nothing.  Yeah, I have no proof that I'm an anti-Marxist.  

As far as America's moral integrity goes, read any posts I've made on the subject in previous threads.  Oh, that's not proof either I suppose.

I certainly don't believe that American committed atrocities were commonplace and I totally reject your accusations that I'm spouting "moral equivalency" crap.  I suppose I have no proof of that either, but oh well.  I fully reject your belief that I am either.  I find an atrocity to be no less immoral if it claims one life than if it claims millions.  The level of atrocity is the same.  The destruction of a life.  The frequency and scope are not the same, but the level is.  The frequency and scope also serve as proof (at least to me) that America itself was morally superior to it's enemies.  Besides, aren't you always supporting the right of just one life?  How is that one life worth less because it's just one life?  You know the answer to that as well as I do.  It's not worthless at all.  It's just as important as a million lives.

Don't fear the truth Garandman, use it.

Ross

Usually, when the "McCArthyism" line is brought out by the hard core Marxist (which I staunchly say you and Ross are NOT) it is used to belittle and paint the other side as freakish.

Disclaimer: The following is my opinion.

I think I'm getting the picture now. You really don't know what these words mean. You haven't been taught. Steyr Aug used the same "McCarthyism" "joke" line on me also, and I decide to ignore it. The McCarthyism word is used to mean "witch hunter, advocate of censorship, paranoid, etc" which I most certainly am not.

So you use "McCarthyism" label.  Ross used the "moral equivalency" argument. And you guys don't mean any harm by it - you just don't apprently know what these words mean.

AS far as me not being able to determine inflection over the internet, I guess that makes the guy who invented emoticons a REAL dufus, eh???? [:D]


[b]NOTE TO ALL:

I'm punching out of this one. Its gotten personal, which is partly my fault, and I'll take my share of the blame on that one.

The discussion has been had, and no points remain to be made, so I'll drop out. Y'all have fun.

Peace,  
garandman[/b]

JOKE, Garandman, say it with me "JOOOOKE".  Don't you get it?  When you "joke" someone, you often use inaccurate or over-exaggerated adjectives to describe them, in order to prove a subtle point.  Evidently this aspect of social dialogue has been lost on you.  Instead of just "getting it", you [i]protest too much[/i] yet again and try to lash out like a child with lame accusations like, "you just don't know the meaning of the word, you Marxist, you!"

The diarrheatic cyber-dribble that makes up the remainder of your reply does not merit retort, nor does it contain the sufficient comedic fodder to allow me to joke your ass yet again (levity is self-evident).

[b]DAMN MARXISTS!!!
[/b]


And I just came here to find out about the show, since I missed it while waiting in the emergency room...

Gee Garandman, your condencsending attitude really makes me just want to drop this subject.  You're right, this HAS become personal.  Anytime someone calls me a Marxist it becomes VERY personal with me.  Since you've called me both a Marxist and NOT a Marxist, your true position will never be genuinely known.  I suppose I'll just drop it since I doubt it will have much to do with an HBO mini-series.

Ross

[img]wsphotofews.excite.com/031/cZ/Wq/u1/ac25988.jpg[/img]

Do doubt - that's what I did.

Some people in these forums cry and bitch over things like they were two years old. I can understand having different opinions on things, but sometimes people here carry on like a bunch of High School girls.

I suggest some of you take up bodybuilding, and perhaps some martial arts as well - then you wouldn't feel so insecure.

Uh oh...
Now you can bitch about me. [+]:D]

Tyler

A few more photos at [url]www.community.webshots.com/user/smokycity1944[/url]

I guess I would just have to suffer the consequences then.  In a situation such as that (last man alive with an oncoming enemy force) I would fight until death.  I would consider myself a coward to surrender myself to the enemy and give them the opportinity to use me against my country.  I am not calling any of the former American POW's cowards.  I would like to know the statistics regarding number of American POW's in Vietnam that were captured after the destruction of their aircraft, and the number who just threw up their hands during a fire-fight, said "I surrender" and were still taken alive.  The fact is officers are valuable, grunts are not.  You didn't hear about many grunts being released from POW camps did you?  Now I'm off the subject.  

I'm not trying to say that you should shoot all enemy soldiers trying to surrender.  I am saying that you should take prisoners only when it is safe to do so.  While you're tying this guys hands together and finding someone who can escort him to a safe holding area, his comrade has just shot you in the back and now the very man you were trying to keep alive has taken your gun, finished you off, and is proceeding to shoot your best friend in the back of the head.  It's war.  

Prisoners should be taken, but not at such time that Americans' lives are put in danger by doing so.  That's all I'm saying.  

"The object of war isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his."  Gen. George S. Patton

No, it's an unbiased reading.  You apparently have way too much emotionally involved in this subject to be even remotely objective about it.  I don't care either way...I don't have any axe to grind on the subject of whether acknowledging that some allied soldiers shot surrendering Germans is a bad thing. You do, and that axe is sure making you lose perspective.

Well, you haven't been in a school recently. The whole mentality is that government can cure what ails you - what else would you expect from GOVERNMENT workers!

And (thomas?) dewey, who essentially founded the public school system, was a socialist, who wanted to bring the joys of Russian socialism to us in the form of public(government) education.

The honest truth.

If put in a situation similar to the one portrayed in last night's "band of brothers" while assaulting those guns, I would most likely be so scared I'd mess my pants and then I would shoot every last one of the enemy present.  I would be too concerned about them re-arming and killing me or my teamies...

After the fight, those left alive would be treated decent and moved quickly to the rear... no summary executions....

I would expect my peers to act accordingly....

The massacre in Malmedy during the Bulge was revolting, but relatively small in scope (something like 100 USGIs shot in cold blood)....

The result was probably much more deadly to the Germans, as I believe many an SS man was shot while trying to surrender to a USGI who had heard about the incident....

The Germans did not make it a regular practice of shooting Americans... I believe the troops at Malmedy were pulled from the Russian front for the offensive and were still quite "sub-human" from their experiences there. If I recall, Pieper was not held personally accountable for the incident...(I could be wrong)

Personally, last night's show reinforced the immense gratitude I have for the men that fought during WW2.... I am reminded of the obligation I have to them, to live my life to high standards and to make their sacrifice worthwhile....the truth is the truth and what they did was overwhelmingly for the good.

nothing is perfect.

Dont know if it was mentioned or not, but the Americans did not target non-combatants on purpose. we dit not gas or burn people pent up in homes or churches.

The japanese military poisoned people with gases and chemicals. used them in experiments. the krauts did the same.

the Americans never did that in WW2

this does not meant that we did not do research on chemical weapons though. as repayment for letting japanese war criminals go free, the U.S. received japans chemical weapons research. (project 182? or some such) that the japanese used to test on chinese villages. sometimes with balloons.

crappy memory lib

I keep looking at the D-day invasion as a text-book case on how not to. The air war was turned and the allies dominated the skies. Seems like Ike and Monty didn't know how to use them.

Not to mention MacArther. Poor leadership all around, however, this was the first war where modern warfare was becoming pratical.

As he explained to me: When the Americans and Russians firt came into contact nobody knew who was who. Americans were killed by Russians and Russians were killed by Americans. There were VERY few incidents of this, but it also happened.

I have never served, but a battlefeild sounds like a nightmare. When your being shot at I doubt I would check every target every time.

Does anybody know how long the series is.

Patton mentioned it in his book. Specifically, he mentions that captured German mountain troops were murdered by men under his command, because of a (false) rumor that they (the mountain troops) murdered doctors and raped nurses. He made the point that front line troops shouldn't be left with prisoners in their hands any longer than necessary.

During Normandy, the Canadian troops did murder German prisoners, and at one point even tied one to the front of one of their tanks in combat. But the Canadians behaved much worse than the Americans did.

As far as I'm concearned, the russians just happened to be shooting at the same people.

In one case, a russian soldier tried to rape an aussi pilot who crashed behind russain lines. The aussie had a broken leg, but punched the russian. The aussie was then drug off by russian troops.

After the war had ended, armed russians began stealing american jeeps at gunpoint. The americans were not armed. One american told the sotry of how several russians tried this with him, and he got the drop on them with his Colt 1905 .45 auto (a personal weapon, not issue).

I also know that some american soldiers detailed to return germans (pilots and their families) to the russian sector saw the russians immediatly begin raping the women. The americans got out of there ASAP, since they didn't know if the russians would get upset about witnesses.

Post from Stator -

Lord, save us from armchair generals! I quite agree that Eisenhower and Montgomery (at least once he left Africa) were pretty lame at times, but how can you fault them when they won the whole shooting match?

And I suppose MacArthur should be ashamed of his conduct in the Pacific as well (oh no, here we go again!)?

Too bad the US didn't have YOU as Supreme Commander in either the European or Pacific Theatres! C'est la Guerre!

Eric The(GetReal)Hun[>]:)]

As it turns out, McCarthy made some effort to defend Col. Jocaim Peiper, the leader of the SS Liberstant, the unit that killed the American pows near Malmady. Peiper wasn't present when the killing occured, and there is no proof he ordered the killing. He survived Nuremburg, but was murdered by French Marxists some years later.

So McCarthy and Marxists do tie into all this, although not neccesarly on the side that people on this board might think.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Other than that, some of the posts in this thread have been hypocritical beyond belief.....acting like a bunch o' kids.