Churchill´s warcrimes

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
British Free Corps
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 05 May 2003, 23:19
Location: England, Great Britain

#46

Post by British Free Corps » 20 Jun 2003, 23:21

Not so much in the closet after a recent discussion on 'white pride'. And the BFC badge is a bit of a give-away
I'd much appreciate it if you left my political affiliations out of a military debate, as they have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. Concerning the badge, haven't you noticed the abundance of members who use Heer and Waffen SS insignia for their avatars? Or are you simply highlighting me because I happened to post in this thread?

...other members use the BFC badge as their avatar.
Not so much in the closet after a recent discussion on 'white pride'
Need I say this again? I have apologised for my remarks in that certain post, stating that my intention was to point out my respect for the achievements of Western/European culture/civilization...
I know it goes against the PC rules, but I don't abide by them...
So why didn't Adolf feature in the topic line? Because every one of these attempts to 'discuss' 'Allied warcrimes' always deal with Area bombing and conveniently forget to mention who perfected the idea in Spain. Don't you think it's odd that the very people who don't see the SS as warcrimanals - even though they were found to be under international law accuse the Allies of warcrimes when there is no case to answer?
The judgements passed at Nuremburg do not feature in my opinion of the Waffen SS. That is how I formed my own view. I posted a list of Waffen SS divisions whose combat reputations are not tarnished by any documented atrocities - refer back to the "Waffen SS & Warcrimes" thread.
British Free Corps -- You wrote: "Churchill was responsible for the implication of "Operation Keelhaul" - the return of Cossack soldiers (who had fought for the Wehrmacht against the Red Army) into the hands of the Soviets."

What is your source on Churchill's personal accountability for "Operation Keelhaul"?
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp
Part of the Yalta Agreement between the Big Three — Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill — involved the repatriation of Russians and Americans to their respective homelands. Keep in mind that the German POW camps contained American prisoners, British prisoners, and Russian prisoners. The Big Three agreed that as the Russians liberated Germany POW camps, American and British POWs would be turned over to the American and British forces. As the Americans and British liberated German POW camps, Russian POWs would be returned to Russia.

There was one big problem with this agreement — a problem that each of the Big Three was well aware of. American and British POWs wanted to return to their own forces. Russian POWs did not want to return to Russian forces because they knew the fate that awaited them.

Stalin wanted revenge. The Russian prisoners were traitors to communism. They deserved to die.

And Roosevelt and Churchill felt the exact same way. Russia was "our friend." Stalin was "Uncle Joe" to the American people. Any Russian who had defied Uncle Joe — any Russian who had opposed our communist friends and allies — deserved to be executed.

The revenge and ensuing holocaust had to be kept secret from the world. The American and British people had to continue maintaining their illusion that this was a war of good versus evil — that only the Nazis engaged in cold-blooded murder — that the Allies epitomized all the goodness of mankind.
Regards
Matt

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#47

Post by Maple 01 » 20 Jun 2003, 23:35

Freedom Daily is our journal of libertarian essays,
So not a historic source as such, but a collection of libertarian essays
Part of the Yalta Agreement between the Big Three — Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill — involved the repatriation of Russians and Americans to their respective homelands
The bottom line is that if the Western allies had not returned the Soviet Citizens back to Russia Stalin would not have released British and American POWs under his control, and as unfortunate as it is for the Russian individuals, neither Truman or Churchill where prepared to jeopardise the return of their servicemen by failing to hand over Soviet citizens, either POWs or Vlasov's men. I can't say I blame them. - Again, not a warcrime – post war pragmatism

Incidently, Churchill lost the election of July 1945 - anything that happened after that date was down to the Attlee govenment - who maintained the same policy - get our boys out - it might not seem as moraly important now, but imagine if it had been your grandfather/uncle that Stalin kept because the terms of yalta were broken


POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#48

Post by POW » 21 Jun 2003, 01:35

Maple 01 wrote:The bottom line is that if the Western allies had not returned the Soviet Citizens back to Russia Stalin would not have released British and American POWs under his control, and as unfortunate as it is for the Russian individuals, neither Truman or Churchill where prepared to jeopardise the return of their servicemen by failing to hand over Soviet citizens, either POWs or Vlasov's men. I can't say I blame them. - Again, not a warcrime – post war pragmatism
And again Maple surprise me with his knowledge. We all know that if a nation offend against international law (regarding rules of war) it is a war crime. So it is not post war pragmatism but a war crime when one custody power transfers prisoners of war to another power. We only can judge acts covered by laws. And since this act was covered by the Convention of Geneva the western Allies were guilty of wir crimes. Simply is that.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#49

Post by Caldric » 21 Jun 2003, 02:51

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Hey Caldric , I do not believe or agree with that one war crime justifies another, either, but I do find a couple problems with your statements.
Even so I still say it is different when dropping bombs and shooting someone in the head. Sure they are both dead, but the shooting was plainly cold blooded
I don't think that is a point of contention to the person who is dead. And I if I had the choice I would rather die from an intentionable bullet , than an unintentionable bomb.
I disagree, yes dead is dead by the actions of the killer is much different so is the intent.
you could actually sneak out of the cities and get away from bombers they were not actually designed to exterminate but to reduce fighting capability. Jews and others had no such choices.
Where are you going to go? To another "target? I suppose you could leave the country. I guess you could, but if this is true why didn't the "and others" you mention do it? I did not want to say that but I wanted to point out some flaws in the "getting away from stategic bombing" idea.[/quote]

They had lots of places to go, the bombers hit major centers of industry, sure it would be hard but this is a choice millions of victims of Nazi Germany never had.

I have a strong opinion that two wrongs very well can make it right.

From above David's post.
Any person, who, without cause, strikes another may not later complain if the other in repelling the attack uses sufficient force to overcome the original adversary. That is fundamental law between individuals in every civilized nation and it is fundamental law between nations as well.
Killing in almost all forms is wrong, but we do not ask police to not kill because there are levels of wrongs I guess you would say.

I agree Dresden was an abuse of strength and not needed for the most part, but it was just one of many horrible events of WWII and not even close to the worse. Even Churchill thought it was wrong, and that History would judge them harshly for it.

However we can hardly single out a great man like Churchill and line him with he many snakes in WWII. Leadership is a great burden and he carried his well.


"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#50

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Jun 2003, 05:55

Ok Caldric, I see where you stand. I don't know about the
"I have a strong opinion that two wrongs very well can make it right."
But I suppose we can leave it at that.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#51

Post by Scott Smith » 21 Jun 2003, 06:58

"They did it too so I am innocent, Your Honor"

--should be changed to: "You did it too, Your Honor. Since when is it a crime?"

Wars are not business competitions waged under statutory laws or regulated by international bodies like tiddlywink tournaments. There are either agreements or not, that will be respected or not.

You have two or more sovereign entitities--each the LAW in its own right--duking it out. If it is standard conduct to use one weapon or tactic for the winning side but not the losing side it is the height of legal and moral hypocrisy. It is bourgeois thinking in facile form, for if wars could be regulated like jousting tournaments then why would you need them in the first place to decide international disagreements?

Btw, the bombing of Guernica was in direct support of ground troops. The same with Warsaw, Rotterdam, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and even Belgrade it could be argued. If bombers are warcriminals then why not artillerists?

However, Churchill (unlike Hitler) wanted to "set Europe ablaze" with terror attacks from insurgents, commandoes and aerial bombardments. Churchill's scientific advisor, Lord Cherwell (Frederick Lindemann) codified this with scientific and statistical arguments. It would be as good as the naval hunger blockade of WWI that prevented neutrals from exporting food to the enemy, only better. Terrorizing the enemy's population would bring the enemy State to its knees with the people in revolt, just like what happened to the Tsar. So you had to put pressure on the "workers." And their families, of course! And destroy their homes and property! (More bourgeois thinking.)

Yes, Hitler finally resorted to the strategic bombing of Britain. But unlike the Allies he offered a generous peace settlement, not wanting to fight them in the first place. On the other hand, Allied terms were unconditional slavery, which they called Unconditional Surrender.

After the war, trials were held. All members of the defeated regime from Führer to dogcatcher were criminalized, which was called "denazification," and a very brutal war was presented one-sidedly with relentless atrocity-propaganda and brainwashing. Twelve-million Germans [see Note below] were ethnically-cleansed after the war by treaty signed by the Victors, with at least 1.5 million deaths. Rape, murder, mutilation, theft, starvation and disease were common. Half of the remaining German territory was held under the Soviet Empire and the other half was remilitarized as a deterrent against the empire of our former Allies. Those who had fought as volunteers against the Soviet regime were sent back by force for execution: Good-Cop/Bad-Cop. Germans were impressed into forced labor camps in peacetime and German POWs were sometimes held for decades.

When the stakes were so high, victory-or-death, is it any wonder that Goebbels as late as mid-1944 called for Total War to mobilize every man, woman, and child into the cause? Of course this makes the people themselves valid military targets according to Democracy-Capitalist apologists, but not repressive measures against enemy aliens (like the Jews). One chicanery is noble, the other wicked.

Yeah, the question as to whether Churchill was a warcriminal or not is rather silly. Did he actually break any laws? And he certainly spent his sentimental years polishing his halo. And for a bourgeois perspective, certainly you wouldn't want to buy a used-car from such a guy. Not if the holy empire was at stake. You see, Anglo-Saxons believe their own propaganda--they can do no moral wrong--even their former enemies believe it so, and have laws against thinking otherwise. But that still doesn't make it any less propaganda.
:)

[NOTE: I edited to change the figure "thirty million Germans" to "twelve million Germans." My mistake. The thirty-million refers to all victims of ethnic cleansing, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, etc. This is explained in a following post.]
Last edited by Scott Smith on 23 Jun 2003, 00:21, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#52

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jun 2003, 08:54

Scott -- Your post seems more lurid than accurate to me. Even allowing for differences of opinion, I don't think a number of your propositions or conclusions are factually true, and others seem grossly overstated. Here are seven examples:

(1) "Btw, the bombing of Guernica was in direct support of ground troops. The same with Warsaw, Rotterdam, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and even Belgrade it could be argued."

Warsaw was bombed at the onset of the war, when German troops were still crossing the frontiers of Poland, so the bombing could not have been "in direct support of ground troops." As I recall, the garrison of Rotterdam had already surrendered at the time it was bombed, and Belgrade had been declared an open city when the Germans bombed it.

(2) "Allied terms were unconditional slavery, which they called Unconditional Surrender."

The institute of slavery involves the ownership of human beings, including the right of sale. The allies asserted no such rights when they occupied Germany in 1945-1949. No country claimed to own the physical bodies of Germans, nor were Germans sold as slaves at market.

(3) "All members of the defeated regime from Führer to dogcatcher were criminalized, which was called 'denazification'"

Proportionally, very few members of the defeated regime from Führer to dogcatcher were criminalized in denazification proceedings, and most were not subjected to denazification proceedings at all. If you have any examples of Nazi dogcatchers who were criminalized, please share the source information with us.

(4) "Those who had fought as volunteers against the Soviet regime were sent back by force for execution: Good-Cop/Bad-Cop."

This is heavily overstated. Within two years after the end of WWII, the US and UK were already showing reluctance to extradite accused war criminals to the Soviet regime or countries controlled by the Soviets. It is almost 60 years since the end of WWII, and the western allies are still being asked to deport Yugoslavs, Balts and Ukrainians who fought in the German armed forces and found refuge in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

(5) "German POWs were sometimes held for decades."

The US had released the bulk of its POWs within a year or two, and all who weren't accused war criminals were released by 1947-48. The British had released their POWs by or in 1948. The Soviets released all remaining German POWs who had not been convicted of war crimes in 1949-50. These POWs cannot be said to have been held for "decades." Even the last of those who were convicted of war crimes by the US, UK and USSR were amnestied and released in 1955-56. If you know of German POWs who were held for twenty years or more, please share the source information with us.

(6) "Of course this makes the people themselves valid military targets according to Democracy-Capitalist apologists, but not repressive measures against enemy aliens (like the Jews). One chicanery is noble, the other wicked."

An alien is a person who is not a citizen of the country where they reside. An enemy alien is a citizen of a country which is at war with the country in which he resides. Neither of these definitions fit the overwhelming majority of European Jews who were murdered. In any event, even if those European Jews fit into the "enemy alien" category (and they don't), the mass murder of enemy aliens by the host country is not permitted either.

(7) "However, Churchill (unlike Hitler) wanted to "set Europe ablaze" with terror attacks from insurgents, commandoes and aerial bombardments."

Are you trying to say that Hitler did not want to "set Europe ablaze" at all, or are you saying that Hitler did not intend to do it "with terror attacks from insurgents, commandoes and aerial bombardments"?

How is the hyperbolic and inflammatory argument you have just used any different from the "propaganda" of others which you condemn?

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#53

Post by Caldric » 21 Jun 2003, 09:33

It is important to note that no German military commander was charged for bombing cities that I am aware of.

User avatar
Gerry
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 21:31
Location: Germany

#54

Post by Gerry » 21 Jun 2003, 10:30

You wrote: "Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was explicitly outlawed under the 1922 Washington Treaty and the targeting of non-combatants was also prohibited under the Geneva Convention."
I couldn't find any treaties outlawing "indiscriminate bombing of civilians." Of the two 1922 Washington treaties, one deals with naval disarmament and the other with the use of noxious gases and submarine warfare. The texts are available on-line at:
Hi David ,
I´m sorry, but I do not have more informations on this subject. I quotet
only from "english" publications I found in the Internet.
So far, I did not have time to study the text of the Geneva convention or
other sources. I actually believe that the germans do not have the right
to accuse Churchill of warcrimes. The holocaust in the jewish people was
a absolutely criminal act against humanity, that cannot be compared with
bombingmissions no matter how many civilians are killed.

User avatar
Gerry
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 21:31
Location: Germany

#55

Post by Gerry » 21 Jun 2003, 10:46

Maple 01 wrote: Gerry, just saying something is a warcrime in your opinion doesn’t make it so in reality, it would be advisable to do as Caldric says and check out a few threads.
My fist posting was mostly copied from an english publication concerning
the book " The Fire" by Joerg Friedrich.
It was NOT meant to accuse Churchill of warcrimes.
I´m a NEWBIE here in the forum and I only wanted to hear you opinions
on the subject . (the excessive bombing of german cities)

I did not intend to excuse german warcrimes or the Nazi-regime.
If you remind me of Adolf Hitler instead of contributing new (in)sights of the subject, it will not be helpful.

You should not believe the allied fairytale that the germans were liberated by the allies. This is political nonsense. One does not liberate people by burning them to death by thousands. Hitler was a thread to the freedom and peace in Europe and had to be stopped. But no allied soldier gave his life to liberate the german people.

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#56

Post by POW » 21 Jun 2003, 10:59

David wrote:
The institute of slavery involves the ownership of human beings, including the right of sale. The allies asserted no such rights when they occupied Germany in 1945-1949. No country claimed to own the physical bodies of Germans, nor were Germans sold as slaves at market.
It is true that no POW was sold on the market. They were given away for free against the rules of the Geneva Convention.
Proportionally, very few members of the defeated regime from Führer to dogcatcher were criminalized in denazification proceedings, and most were not subjected to denazification proceedings at all. If you have any examples of Nazi dogcatchers who were criminalized, please share the source information with us.
It is true that after WW2 some people had the bad luck to have the wrong profession. All kind of Führer were dangerous in Allied mind. So had the Kranführer (crane driver) for example the bad luck to get imprisoned in a special cage. No bed of roses....
Many people were searched by the Wanted Prisoners of War Section. Often the datas of these people were not accurate (e.g. Beck instead of Keck), most times the first names were missing, wrong ranks etc. For reasons of precaution all people with the same surname were arrested.
This is heavily overstated. Within two years after the end of WWII, the US and UK were already showing reluctance to extradite accused war criminals to the Soviet regime or countries controlled by the Soviets. It is almost 60 years since the end of WWII, and the western allies are still being asked to deport Yugoslavs, Balts and Ukrainians who fought in the German armed forces and found refuge in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.
So far I know the majority was send back to their native country. What that would mean for all Lativans etc was clear. Further the Germans or Volksdeutsche lived in Yugoslavia etc. were repatriated to the countries they came from. In many cases that meant new imprisonment after repatriation. After the rules of the Geneva Convention this was absoluley correct. However, I don't understand wy thousands of prisoners can be transported like cattles from one custody power to another against the laws and in this case the Allies are quoting the same convention.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#57

Post by Maple 01 » 21 Jun 2003, 11:16

And again Maple surprise me with his knowledge. We all know that if a nation offend against international law (regarding rules of war) it is a war crime. So it is not post war pragmatism but a war crime when one custody power transfers prisoners of war to another power. We only can judge acts covered by laws. And since this act was covered by the Convention of Geneva the western Allies were guilty of wir crimes. Simply is that
Have you written to apologise for your lack of knowledge over the Dresden bomb loads?

A reminder in case you forgot
Fire bombs to destroy railways? Better you stop posting on this. You make a fool of yourself.
From the RAF web-site Bomber Command diary
Dresden: 796 Lancasters and 9 Mosquitos were dispatched in two separate raids and dropped 1,478 tons of high explosive and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs.
So, I assume you’ll be taking back your few ill chosen words
You make a fool of yourself.
Meanwhile……
And since this act was covered by the Convention of Geneva the western Allies were guilty of wir crimes
Several problems with that

1. The Soviet Union didn’t sign up for the Geneva convention – which was the excuse given by Adolf for treating their POWs so badly…….
2. As the Soviet citizens weren’t prisoners of the Western Allies all the WA were doing was exchanging Stalin’s people for their own – show me where that’s a warcrime
3. If you want t maintain the fiction of trying to pin a Geneva convention breach
On the WA, read the following

SECTION II
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Repatriated means returned to their country of origin – unless you know different
repatriate verb [T]
to send or bring someone, or sometimes money or other property, back to their own country:
e.g. The government repatriated him because he had no visa.
Next!

User avatar
Gerry
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 15 Jun 2003, 21:31
Location: Germany

#58

Post by Gerry » 21 Jun 2003, 13:33

Caldric wrote: Nope it was not outlawed, it is only not allowed if the City is not defended and perhaps if it has been made an "open city". Germany started City busting in Spain years before WWII started. They also bombed Warsaw into rubble in 1939 with no concern for civil population and other cities throughout the war.
The Germans did not bomb cities for a strategic purpose but for purposes of destroying industry, infrastructure, or human lives. They bombed cities like Warsaw in accordance with the laws of war, which dictated that a city that was under siege could be shelled or bombed. There is a big difference between such tactical bombing and the strategic bombing carried out by the allies.

POW
Banned
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

#59

Post by POW » 21 Jun 2003, 14:29

Maple gets funnier with every message he types.
Have you written to apologise for your lack of knowledge over the Dresden bomb loads? A reminder in case you forgot
Where have I to apologize for? It's not my fault you have a gap in your knowledge. The high explosive bombs had the purpose to destroy windows of the homes and the incendiary bombs should finish it off. Listen Maple, to this scenario all historians agree and I don't have the intension to discuss any "railway station theory" with you. You can cry, whine and stamp with your feets on the floor but you can't change the facts.
2. As the Soviet citizens weren’t prisoners of the Western Allies all the WA were doing was exchanging Stalin’s people for their own – show me where that’s a warcrime
I don't know where you are talking about. Can you prove Stalin held soldiers of his allies as reprisal?
SECTION II
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Fine but that has nothing to do with your statement above. So far I know the hostilities ended in 1945. We agreed that a great number was released in 47/48. I can't call it a "repatriation without delay after the cessation of active hostilities".

"Art 12. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention."
After you agreed Russia never signed the Convention, I'm surprised you see no problem in the transfer of German prisoners from US to Russian custody. It seems either to me that you are not familar with the facts. So you better do your homework first before entering a discussion.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 00:19
Location: UK

#60

Post by Maple 01 » 21 Jun 2003, 14:50

We agreed that a great number was released in 47/48. I can't call it a "repatriation without delay after the cessation of active hostilities".
Did you read the bit that Churchill lost the election of 1945? That means he's no longer PM and his party’s not in power, therefore you can't blame him for the post-war labour government’s actions - or are you really as ignorant of how governments work as you claim?
Where have I to apologize for?
You complained about the use of incengries in Dresden, you failed to mention the fact that most of the bomb tonnage dropped was HE - eminently suitable for use against railway systems - either you didn't know - so you were ignorant of the facts or you deliberately 'overlooked' the fact that the majority of the bombs dropped were HE - either way I accept your apology for your ignorance in this matter
I don't have the intension to discuss any "railway station theory"
Dresden was given as an example, you quoted the Geneva convention on indiscriminate bombing - I pointed out that every Allied raid had an Aiming point that was clearly linked to the Nazi war machine - call it a legal nicety if you don't like it - Bomber command had international standard legal people on hand to advise on the matter right through the war- so it complied with the legal requirements of the convention. – sorry.
You can cry, whine and stamp with your feets on the floor but you can't change the facts
Fact: Adolf Hitler was proclaimed a war criminal in an international court of justice. The whole NSDAP likewise, no western leaders were, I suggest you live with it! I'm not the one trying to change history!
I don't know where you are talking about. Can you prove Stalin held soldiers of his allies as reprisal?


Yes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jh ... onic01.xml
Whitehall was right, however, in its estimate of Russian reasons for holding on to Allied PoWs whose camps the Red Army overran: they were hostages, their fate dependent on the return to Russia of former Soviet troops caught fighting for the Germans. In the words of the Secretary of State for War, "if the choice is between hardship to our men and death to the Russians, the choice is plain". Such realities are rarely mentioned in debate about the return of the Cossacks.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”