Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
John W
Financial supporter
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003 07:12
Location: United States of America

Post by John W » 29 Nov 2003 04:00

I don't know Penn44. I haven't seen enough of both sides. And unless I start working, paying taxes and begin raising my own family, I don't think I can answer it with much surety.

So far, I prefer Capitalism over Socialist government.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 29 Nov 2003 04:20

John W wrote:I don't know Penn44. I haven't seen enough of both sides. And unless I start working, paying taxes and begin raising my own family, I don't think I can answer it with much surety.

So far, I prefer Capitalism over Socialist government.
Certainly capitalism wins by default. I was just out shopping for items to fill my batchelor pad. I couldn't help but notice the poor slaves to consumer capitalism slavishly buying crap for the Christmas consumer season. I couldn't help but reflect on the neo-Marxist concept of "rational needs" versus "irrational needs."


.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 29 Nov 2003 20:14

Matt H. wrote:Marxism is the clearest example of "wishful thinking" I have ever come across. The bearded boob must have been away with the fairies for his entire life.
And does Adam Smith's idea of a society guided by selfishness make any more sense? In an economy where the only value is assigned to privately owned commodities, anything that is not privately owned (e.g. fresh air, public heath, high culture, etc.) is going to suffer. The problem with both Dialectical Materialism and Capitalism is that they are both materialistic and therefore exclude genuinely human values.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 29 Nov 2003 21:29

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Deterance wrote:In regards to the second question...The gulags in their totality, Stalin's Purges, Ukrainian Famine, "dekulakization" are equal to the worst atrocities of the NAZIS. Same absolute idealogy....just a different name.
Really? All the Soviet excesses were Democide (the killing of social groups) and never Genocide (killing by race, ethnicity). Since there is no racism in the Soviet ideology, aren't they that much better than the Nazis?
Hell no they are not better. Dead is dead, people where killed just for being born in both cases. Religion was harshly stamped out in the Soviet Union under so called Socialist. Do you think the Chechens where killed because of ethnicity? Volga Germans? Killing because of race or because of political leaning is no different, Communist were just as bad as Nazi's. If you want to add Maoist in there with the Soviets they are far worse. Communism in practice and attempt is worse then or equal to Nazism.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 29 Nov 2003 21:33

Marxism and Communism is a pipe dream that is not compatible with human nature. In 500 years who knows but today no way they are the worse choices, I can not believe people still harp on it and preach as though it is better then Democratic Socialism or Capitalism.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 29 Nov 2003 23:14

Caldric wrote: I can not believe people still harp on it and preach as though it is better then Democratic Socialism or Capitalism.
Marx's social and economic theories are pretty much long since obsolete. Yet much of Marx's philosophy, his humanism, is still quite inviting, and I believe in many ways, to be the greatest expression of humanism. Marx believed that we humans had created a world against us, the creation against the creator, and that we believe mistakenly that we cannot or should not change it. As Marx said, whereas we humans have created our world, we have the power to change it. In so many words, to have our creation dictate to us, the creators, who we are and how we should live our lives, is something that belittles us as humans and turns us into nothing more than clogs in a machine.

Unfortunately, Marx came too early. The time for the "revolution" is yet to come.

.

User avatar
Veteran
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 24 Nov 2003 16:45
Location: Derventa, Republic of Srpska, BiH

Post by Veteran » 30 Nov 2003 00:11

And finally: what have Marx and Smith to do with allies/axis war crimes?

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 18:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

Post by Matt H. » 30 Nov 2003 01:22

Penn44 wrote:
Matt H. wrote:Marxism is the clearest example of "wishful thinking" I have ever come across. The bearded boob must have been away with the fairies for his entire life.
And Nazism is "less wishful thinking"?

There is a great deal of childlike "magical thinking" in Nazism, and I use the term, "magical thinking" in the clinical sense derived from child psychology.


.
As I consider myself a member of the Western Right, I can only see marxism in a negative light. Hell yeah, of course I approach it with an anti-communist bias, but I'm not afraid to admit that.
Last edited by Matt H. on 30 Nov 2003 01:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 18:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

Post by Matt H. » 30 Nov 2003 01:31

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Matt H. wrote:Marxism is the clearest example of "wishful thinking" I have ever come across. The bearded boob must have been away with the fairies for his entire life.
And does Adam Smith's idea of a society guided by selfishness make any more sense? In an economy where the only value is assigned to privately owned commodities, anything that is not privately owned (e.g. fresh air, public heath, high culture, etc.) is going to suffer. The problem with both Dialectical Materialism and Capitalism is that they are both materialistic and therefore exclude genuinely human values.
I'm not an Adam Smith-style economist, nor am I an economist for that matter. I believe in protection to secure the jobs of British workers and the survival of British industry. I find it highly damaging that so many companies are now relocating and exporting jobs to the Third World at the expense of British workers.

I've taken a look at The Great Betrayal by Pat Buchanan, and he raises some good points. Although he concentrates on U.S. economic history, he believes that it was globalised free trade that contributed to the fall of the British Empire. I'll gladly discuss it with you further in another thread, as this is not the place.

Regards.


von Loringen
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 24 May 2005 17:49
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post by von Loringen » 24 May 2005 19:37

Deterance wrote:The question should be broken down into two parts.

1. Are the crimes of the Western Allies equal to Germany and it's allies?
2. Are the crimes of the Soviet Union equal to Germany and it's allies?

In regards to the first question, I say no...not even close. Western War crimes were small scale and done as an individual small unit practice. Germany's crimes were far larger and directed on the national level.
That last part isn't quite true. There were repeated cases of American and Commonwealth officers being captured bearing orders , often from Division and Corps HQs, instructing them not to take German prisoners, especially Waffen SS. The first such instance starts with the retreating BEF in May 1940, which was told, unequivically, not to take German prisoners. Sodiers of the Canadian
I Corps were captured in Normandy by troops of 12th SS Panzer bearing such documents, as were elements of the 106th US Inf Div in the Ardenness, captured by troops of 1st SS Panzer. Further, the use of torture to extract false confessions from 63 members of 1st SS during the Malmedy investigations were directed by a General, (Mark Clark), overseen by a Colonel, and covered up, denied or ignored by US Senators and a Presidedent (Truman). I do not know how you reckon it, but I wouldn't call those "small units."

On the whole, I woould say that the Western Allies, as soldiers, behaved at least, and probably more reprehensibly than did the Germans, which you would expect looking at the matter psychologically, because the Germans were more professional soldiers.

Which isn't to wholly condemn Allied soldiers either. I would argue that most soldiers on both sides of the fighting in the West tried to behave correctly. But the bad cases run right up to the ranks of Generals. I would add that the few veterans of the ETO I have talked to emphasized the exceptionally honourable chracter of their German opponents.

Now, you may perhaps choose to regard overall German warcrimes as worse than that of the Western Allies, but to attempt to do so in the matter of actual military formations just won't stand up to the available evidence. Incidentally, most of the incients of German MILITARY warcrimes can be laid at the feet of men of Captain rank or below. It is German offences that more accurately fit your description of "small scale, and done as individual small unit practice."

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 24 May 2005 21:02

von Loringen wrote:There were repeated cases of American and Commonwealth officers being captured bearing orders , often from Division and Corps HQs, instructing them not to take German prisoners, especially Waffen SS.
I’ve never heard of such a thing, do you have a source on this?

Also, was the order not to take prisoners because there was no place to keep them (as at for instance the Normandy beachhead) or because they would be an encumbrance (as with the retreating BEF in 1940), or were the orders to execute those men taken prisoner? These are two very different things.
von Loringen wrote:Now, you may perhaps choose to regard overall German warcrimes as worse than that of the Western Allies, but to attempt to do so in the matter of actual military formations just won't stand up to the available evidence. Incidentally, most of the incients of German MILITARY warcrimes can be laid at the feet of men of Captain rank or below. It is German offences that more accurately fit your description of "small scale, and done as individual small unit practice."
Here you are trying to evade a moral question by making an arbitrary distinction between “military” and “military” crimes. Please go back to the top of the thread and review our question under discussion: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust? The word “military” does not appear in that question.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23579
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 24 May 2005 21:34

von Loringen -- You said:
That last part isn't quite true. There were repeated cases of American and Commonwealth officers being captured bearing orders , often from Division and Corps HQs, instructing them not to take German prisoners, especially Waffen SS. The first such instance starts with the retreating BEF in May 1940, which was told, unequivically, not to take German prisoners. Sodiers of the Canadian I Corps were captured in Normandy by troops of 12th SS Panzer bearing such documents, as were elements of the 106th US Inf Div in the Ardenness, captured by troops of 1st SS Panzer.
and
Further, the use of torture to extract false confessions from 63 members of 1st SS during the Malmedy investigations were directed by a General, (Mark Clark), overseen by a Colonel, and covered up, denied or ignored by US Senators and a Presidedent (Truman). I do not know how you reckon it, but I wouldn't call those "small units."
and
On the whole, I woould say that the Western Allies, as soldiers, behaved at least, and probably more reprehensibly than did the Germans, which you would expect looking at the matter psychologically, because the Germans were more professional soldiers.
and
Now, you may perhaps choose to regard overall German warcrimes as worse than that of the Western Allies, but to attempt to do so in the matter of actual military formations just won't stand up to the available evidence.
From the H&WC section rules, posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962 :
When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Also, undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.
and
Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.
For the benefit of the readers, please source comments like those quoted above.

bratello
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 15:46
Location: Rome, Italy

Post by bratello » 24 May 2005 22:08

It seems that the question Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust? already contains the answer: the word "crimes" is in quotation marks, Holocaust isn't.

Regards.

von Loringen
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 24 May 2005 17:49
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post by von Loringen » 25 May 2005 16:10

R.M. Schultz wrote:
von Loringen wrote:There were repeated cases of American and Commonwealth officers being captured bearing orders , often from Division and Corps HQs, instructing them not to take German prisoners, especially Waffen SS.
"I’ve never heard of such a thing, do you have a source on this?"

Kurt Meyer's memoirs, Grenadiers, contain several such incidents, which were substantiated to be true by Canadian investigators. See also Reynold's Steel Inferno, which contains references to two incidents involving British and Canadian troops. The trial of Kurt Meyer brought to light several instances, including the execution of the Artillery HQ group of the Panzer Lehr's artillery regiment by British troops. That is also referenced in Berlin War Diary, as one of the survivors was a friend of Missy (I hope you will forgive me if the spelling of the author's long Russian name eludes me at the moment.) :) In fact, Kurt Meyer's release was a result of a lot of embarrassing facts which Canadian investigator's discovered while reviewing the trial. See, again, the first two books. There is a thrid source, but I am having trouble remembering it. I will get back to you when I do.

The "no prisoners" order in France 1940 comes from Dunkirk: Patriotic Myth by Nicholas Harman. It quotes the diaries of two British officers, whose accounts also make mention of the shooting of Belgian civilians by British soldiers. That appears again in Len Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly.

"Also, was the order not to take prisoners because there was no place to keep them (as at for instance the Normandy beachhead) or because they would be an encumbrance (as with the retreating BEF in 1940), or were the orders to execute those men taken prisoner? These are two very different things."

Are they? If you have orders not to take prisoners, but you end up with some, as the natural result of combat, what do you think that means? In every instance where such oders were given that I have ever heard of, in ANY army, it has resulted in the execution of prisoners. Incidentally, the Allierd cases concerning German execution of prisoners rests on the supposition that an equally vague "don't become encumbered with prisoners" orders. Whatever linguistic distinction you choose to make, they amount to exactly the same thing. Check any military history, concerning any period, and any nation. The refences to the way such orders have always been acted on are too numerous to reference.
von Loringen wrote:Now, you may perhaps choose to regard overall German warcrimes as worse than that of the Western Allies, but to attempt to do so in the matter of actual military formations just won't stand up to the available evidence. Incidentally, most of the incients of German MILITARY warcrimes can be laid at the feet of men of Captain rank or below. It is German offences that more accurately fit your description of "small scale, and done as individual small unit practice."
Here you are trying to evade a moral question by making an arbitrary distinction between “military” and “military” crimes. Please go back to the top of the thread and review our question under discussion: Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust? The word “military” does not appear in that question.
Well, no I am not. I do not see what you mean by trying to make a distinction between "military" and "military crimes." Since we seem to be misunderstandign each other, let me restate my point: Western Allied military formations behaved just as badly, and often worse than German ones. That's it. I did not, and am not attempting to argue that the overall crimes committed by the Western Allies in WWII exceed or equal those of Germany in scope, considering all activities by all government institutions.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”