Patton and War Crimes

[drone]

I think we may have different definitions of moral superiority. To me, moral superiority is not responding to immoral behavior in kind (or in a far greater magnitude). That would be... moral equivalency.

I wasn't commenting on the moral superiority of the bombing campaigns, just the direction of the air war started by the Germans. There were no conventions covering the conduct of air warfare, the Allies just followed the leader. Double whammy, really, since the Blitz lost the Luftwaffe the Battle of Britain.

The Allies certainly weren't above forced starvation of POWs. But really, all mocking aside, your statement highlights the point I was making above. German food policy was planned at the highest levels of the Nazi regime. How many German soldiers knew Germany was intentionally thinning out Soviet POWs through starvation and how many simply thought the dangerously thin food rations simply weren't enough to go around? (they weren't) And how many on the front lines had any real knowledge of what was going on in the POW camps at all?

Don't get me wrong. Plenty of German soldiers were involved in war crimes against Russian POWs. It was a barbaric war on both sides. My point is that when generalized statements attributing things to a collective group are more deeply analyzed, often the reality turns out to be different than what was presented. The knowledge and complicity in Nazi war crimes deviated greatly among German soldiers and the German people, but it is a fundamental misconception to assume that the vast majority of Germans had full knowledge of and supported the worst of those policies. There was no free press, no internet, no real way of knowing the full extent of what the government was doing other than what the government told them.

I wasn't talking about Russian POWs. Soviet citizens were to be starved from occupied lands through food management. ATPG might think the way I do about it. The brutality between the armies on both sides in the East is fairly well known, and the Holocaust has better PR, but in terms of scale the Slav civilians caught the brunt of it.

Again, I do not understand how one can favorably compare the Allies to the Axis based on their treatment of civilians. There is no question that the massive bombing of German cities was a war crime of epic magnitude. The commander of the Royal Air Force himself stated that the bombing of cities was an intentional targeting of German civilians meant to kill and terrorize as many as possible, not collateral damage from targeting military facilities. Unlike the Holocaust, for example, this widespread, targeted killing of civilians was widely known, accepted, and even celebrated throughout the Allied armed forces and greater populations. They even made movies celebrating the heroics of dropping bombs on defenseless civilians.

See my first.

The only valid argument supporting your point I have seen in this thread is based on scale. There is certainly no doubt that the scale of Axis crimes was greater than those of the Allies – although not by as much as some here seem to believe.

However, as I’ve said before, I’m just not convinced that scale has as much weight as some here would like. Once the collective group accepts and even celebrates the intentional killing of civilians, does it matter how big the final body count turns out to be from a moral perspective? Does murdering 5 people make one morally superior to someone who murdered 10?

I just don’t view the morality of mass killing as a sliding scale. I see it more as two pieces of land separated by a river and connected by a bridge. Once you cross that bridge, once you knowingly accept that your government is killing innocent people in your name, the body count is just a sad function of the means and length of the killing.

Scale matters a lot, since large scale generally means there is an organizational and institutional approval of the deed.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wasn't talking about Russian POWs. Soviet citizens were to be starved from occupied lands through food management. ATPG might think the way I do about it. The brutality between the armies on both sides in the East is fairly well known, and the Holocaust has better PR, but in terms of scale the Slav civilians caught the brunt of it.

That's what I was getting at. To my knowledge only Germany fought a campaign whose purpose was one of ethnic cleansing (though Japan's actions in China are pretty horrific and may have been very deliberate; I am unfamiliar with it). German conduct (both SS and Whermacht) on the Eastern Front went way beyond shooting POWs (or not taking prisoners).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wasn't commenting on the moral superiority of the bombing campaigns, just the direction of the air war started by the Germans. There were no conventions covering the conduct of air warfare, the Allies just followed the leader. Double whammy, really, since the Blitz lost the Luftwaffe the Battle of Britain....

They lost the Battle of Britain by bothering to fight it at all. Total waste of resources and the death of many skilled aircrew to achieve more or less nothing. Even if they had won hands down, shattering the RAF, they would have achieved nothing strategically. Pointless vanity by Goering as near as I can figure it.


PJ:

Neither side treated civilians appropriately according to modern expectations of combatants. That having been acknowledged, it simply isn't accurate to stack the often programmatic efforts of the Germans against that of the Western Allies.

Did we bomb civilians? Yes, as had the Germans. In the first days of the war, the UK bombed Germany....with leaflets. The Germans bombed Warsaw, to scare the Poles into quitting. They would do the same in Rotterdam 9 months later. They had done the same in 1937 at Guernica. All three attacks were carried out despite the Luftwaffe's official stance opposing the terror bombing theory of Douhet.

More later

[Brenus]

“I appreciate the depth such anecdotal commentary brings to the discussion, but I'm not sure it makes much of a point. I can produce accounts of Allied soldiers witnessing Allied crimes”
PJ, you should have check who is August Von Kageneck:
Brother of Erbo von Kagueneck (Luftwaffe, 67 victories, Oak Leaves to Knights Cross) and Clemens-Heinrich Graf von Kageneck(1913-2005), Panzer commander, Oak Leaves to Knights Cross.
Nephew of Von Papen.

Books:
Lieutenant de Panzers (Lieutenant in the Panzers)
Examen de conscience: nous étions vaincus mais nous nous croyions innocents (Conscience examine: we were vanquish but we believed we were innocents)
La guerre à l’Est (War in the East)
Lieutenant sous la tête de mort (Lieutenant under the Death Head)
De la Croix de Fer à la potence: Roland von Hoesslin, un officier allemand (From the Iron Cross to the Gallows: Roland von Hoesslin, a German Officer).

So I do think that his writings are more than anecdotes

[Horatius]

Most war crimes by both sides went unpunished, but the German war crimes do outnumber allied and are on a much higher scale. At least German and Allied soldiers usually treated each other well (which is why the Germans flocked to surrender to the western allies at wars end), but remember the Eastern front? I don't think I need to elaborate further.

[PanzerJaeger]

The overwhelming amount of bombs were dropped in 1944, when the scale of the German atrocities had become clear.

Are you attempting to make the case that the buildup in Allied bombing from earlier years to '44 was a response to - or even had anything to do with - German atrocities? That runs counter to everything I've read on the subject, which maintains that said buildup was a function of Allied production capacity and the Luftwaffe's ability to resist. Either you've uncovered some shocking new information, or I'm going to have to call this a clear example of negationism.

Total number for Japan is some 300/500k. Again, overwhelmingly in 1944/5.

So, using your own numbers, the Allies killed between 600,000 and 1,100,000 civilians just through the bombing of civilians centers in Germany and Japan and not counting the bombing of Italy, the killing of POWs and surrendering soldiers, or anything else. That's what you're defending so adamently?

http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/hi/hist...tionism%29.htm

I don't appreciate the implications. I'm not the one trying desperately to explain away the intentional targeting and murder of millions of civilians. I'm not the one justifying unjustifiable war crimes. I'm not the denier in this discussion.

I wasn't talking about Russian POWs. Soviet citizens were to be starved from occupied lands through food management. ATPG might think the way I do about it. The brutality between the armies on both sides in the East is fairly well known, and the Holocaust has better PR, but in terms of scale the Slav civilians caught the brunt of it.

Of course. Not sure why I went off on a tangent about POWs... was trying to pay attention to a lecture at the same time. Anyway, my comment applies to the Russian civilians as well.

Scale matters a lot, since large scale generally means there is an organizational and institutional approval of the deed.

That applies to the Allies as well. Would you agree that there was certainly organizational and institutional approval of destroying large civilian centers? I don't think Harris' words can be interpreted any other way.

They lost the Battle of Britain by bothering to fight it at all. Total waste of resources and the death of many skilled aircrew to achieve more or less nothing. Even if they had won hands down, shattering the RAF, they would have achieved nothing strategically. Pointless vanity by Goering as near as I can figure it.

It was meant to gain air superiority in preparation for Operation Sea Lion.

Neither side treated civilians appropriately according to modern expectations of combatants. That having been acknowledged, it simply isn't accurate to stack the often programmatic efforts of the Germans against that of the Western Allies.

You wouldn't say that the Allied bombing was a programmatic effort with the expressed intention of killing civilians?

PJ, you should have check who is August Von Kageneck:
So I do think that his writings are more than anecdotes.

I am aware of who he is, but his recollections are one set out of tens of millions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...It was meant to gain air superiority in preparation for Operation Sea Lion.

Bollocks. The Germans made virtually no preparation whatsoever for anything resembling an invasion of England. Hitler was, at best, lukewarm about the whole idea. The aerial bombardment, coupled with low morale following France, was supposed to bring England to the negotiating table.

There never was going to be a Sea Lion, and it could never have been successful had one been staged. Absolutely nothing in the figures on sealift, naval covering forces, etc. give any hope for a sustained effort by Germany following an amphibious strike. Total pipe dream.

The Germans badly under-estimated England's will to resist and wasted a ridiculous number of pilots from what was probably the premier tactical support air force in existence at the time (better even than the USMC who pioneered the close support stuff).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...You wouldn't say that the Allied bombing was a programmatic effort with the expressed intention of killing civilians?

The aerial bombardment of Germany was specifically designed to kill as many Germans as possible. We didn't think it would break their will to resist, we wanted them to die. If we killed enough of them and broke or disrupted enough of their infrastructure, then maybe they wouldn't be able to fight so effectively. We were every bit the coterie of heartless murderers they were and have no right to take a moral high ground approach on anything aside from the Holocaust. We also did it a heck of a lot better than they did and killed scads more of them then they did us.

On the other hand, we didn't start the killing -- they did. We were not the first to expressly target civilians in that war -- they were. What we did was classic tit-for-tat, a system of behaviorial response that has worked effectively for a few millenia. So if you accept reciprocity as a valid response, then you shouldn't have a problem with what happened. If you don't then you always will. You burden either way.

Why do you always push it with WWII Germany, PJ? Is there something about you that revels in all of us having a moral equivalence to that regime of sick, twisted fucks? Ultimately, we simply don't. I guess for me the real core issue of the whole thing is pretty simple. That regime was evil and its leaders and key supporters knowingly did evil. The Allies did some horrific things in pursuit of a larger and more worthwhile goal. Does the end justify the means? Sadly, sometimes, it does.

[Horatius]

The aerial bombardment of Germany was specifically designed to kill as many Germans as possible. We didn't think it would break their will to resist, we wanted them to die. If we killed enough of them and broke or disrupted enough of their infrastructure, then maybe they wouldn't be able to fight so effectively. We were every bit the coterie of heartless murderers they were and have no right to take a moral high ground approach on anything aside from the Holocaust. We also did it a heck of a lot better than they did and killed scads more of them then they did us.

On the other hand, we didn't start the killing -- they did. We were not the first to expressly target civilians in that war -- they were. What we did was classic tit-for-tat, a system of behaviorial response that has worked effectively for a few millenia. So if you accept reciprocity as a valid response, then you shouldn't have a problem with what happened. If you don't then you always will. You burden either way.

Why do you always push it with WWII Germany, PJ? Is there something about you that revels in all of us having a moral equivalence to that regime of sick, twisted fucks? Ultimately, we simply don't. I guess for me the real core issue of the whole thing is pretty simple. That regime was evil and its leaders and key supporters knowingly did evil. The Allies did some horrific things in pursuit of a larger and more worthwhile goal. Does the end justify the means? Sadly, sometimes, it does.

RaF, and USAF targetted German Military Infrastructure Industrial production, Oil Production, and other essentials for warfare. It is unfortunate that all of those happened to be housed in German cities, and the smart bomb wasn't invented yet. The allies needed to harm German factories. Today it would be a war crime, but back then it wasn't.

The German Airforce at first did the same thing, and the RaF was very nearly destroyed by non stop air raids. Hitler ironically saved the RaF by switching the order from military and other infrastructure to just killing Britons. It was when the population instead of the RaF became the target that the Battle of Britain was won.

We can't take the absolute morale high ground, but we could say that what we did was required to win the war, and that arguably the ends justify the means because the nazis donated their name to meaning an ultimate evil for a reason, and Germany was fighting to at least take over large portions of the world in the name of racial purity.

[PanzerJaeger]

Bollocks. The Germans made virtually no preparation whatsoever for anything resembling an invasion of England. Hitler was, at best, lukewarm about the whole idea. The aerial bombardment, coupled with low morale following France, was supposed to bring England to the negotiating table.

There never was going to be a Sea Lion, and it could never have been successful had one been staged. Absolutely nothing in the figures on sealift, naval covering forces, etc. give any hope for a sustained effort by Germany following an amphibious strike. Total pipe dream.

The Germans badly under-estimated England's will to resist and wasted a ridiculous number of pilots from what was probably the premier tactical support air force in existence at the time (better even than the USMC who pioneered the close support stuff).

You have to separate your opinion about the success of a possible invasion from the fact that an invasion was planned. Hitler issued Directive No. 16 and preparations were made at every level of the German military. Gaining air superiority in preparation for Sea Lion was the purpose of the Luftwaffe operations during the battle.

The aerial bombardment of Germany was specifically designed to kill as many Germans as possible. We didn't think it would break their will to resist, we wanted them to die. If we killed enough of them and broke or disrupted enough of their infrastructure, then maybe they wouldn't be able to fight so effectively. We were every bit the coterie of heartless murderers they were and have no right to take a moral high ground approach on anything aside from the Holocaust. We also did it a heck of a lot better than they did and killed scads more of them then they did us.

Thank you. Acceptance of reality is all that can be expected.

Why do you always push it with WWII Germany, PJ?

I don't understand the attitude of moral superiority. I mean, why were the British fighting the Japanese half way across the world in the first place? Think about that one...

[Brenus]

“his recollections are one set out of tens of millions” No. His analyse based on his knowledge of the Wehrmacht (and his own experience) was the first step of a new approach of the Nazi War Machine.
Before him it was the bad SS and the good Heer. Now, and he was the first to say it, the Nazi Machine was good at implicating every level of the society in segmenting and diffusing the responsibilities…
So each level could ignore the reality in denying the ultimate goal. The Jews extermination was “ignored” by the generals because done by the “political” SS.
Again, I will not explain how the Nazi succeeded to do so, but even the guy throwing the Zyclon B in the Gaz chamber didn’t feel guilty as he was just part of the machine.
Von Kageneck was the first one who show this was working within the Heer, how the Nazi succeeded to impose the notion of the “brutal” war, the “merciless” war even to the older/imperial Junkers officers.
And his findings are safer than interview of 1,000 war veterans, especially when I don’t know how it was done, as for me, it looks like the man who saw the man who saw the man who saw the bear, and he had no fear…

[Pannonian]

On the other hand, we didn't start the killing -- they did. We were not the first to expressly target civilians in that war -- they were. What we did was classic tit-for-tat, a system of behaviorial response that has worked effectively for a few millenia. So if you accept reciprocity as a valid response, then you shouldn't have a problem with what happened. If you don't then you always will. You burden either way.

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

[Brenus]

why were the British fighting the Japanese half way across the world in the first place?
Erm, because they were attacked?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The aerial bombardment of Germany was specifically designed to kill as many Germans as possible. We didn't think it would break their will to resist, we wanted them to die. If we killed enough of them and broke or disrupted enough of their infrastructure, then maybe they wouldn't be able to fight so effectively. We were every bit the coterie of heartless murderers they were and have no right to take a moral high ground approach on anything aside from the Holocaust. We also did it a heck of a lot better than they did and killed scads more of them then they did us.

On the other hand, we didn't start the killing -- they did. We were not the first to expressly target civilians in that war -- they were. What we did was classic tit-for-tat, a system of behaviorial response that has worked effectively for a few millenia. So if you accept reciprocity as a valid response, then you shouldn't have a problem with what happened. If you don't then you always will. You burden either way.

No, I'm afraid I must disagree with all this, except for the bit pointing out cause and effect.


What of the allied bombings and destruction of Caen, Le Havre, Strasbourg? Were they intended to kill as many civilians as possible, or did they serve a military purpose? Perhaps the world forgets that most of the fighting did not take place in Germany and Japan, that citizens in other countries were bombed too, not just by Axis, but by the allies. This is what happens with total war.

It is not just the Holocaust. What of the destruction of Poland? The scorched earth tactic by the advancing German army in the Soviet Union? The slave camps, the slave labour. The million other crimes?

We did not kill as many of them as they killed of ours. The total number of Axis civilian deaths is some 1.5 to 2.5 million. The total number of Allied civilian deaths is some 30-40 million.

[PanzerJaeger]

why were the British fighting the Japanese half way across the world in the first place?
Erm, because they were attacked?

Allow me to rephrase. Why were the British available to be attacked in Asia? Why were they and the French and the Americans there?

[Strike For The South]

Allow me to rephrase. Why were the British available to be attacked in Asia? Why were they and the French and the Americans there?

Becuze were naughty little imperialists.

You have shown me the light

[Pannonian]

why were the British fighting the Japanese half way across the world in the first place?
Erm, because they were attacked?

Don't forget the nasty imperialistic Chinese who were brutally oppressing the poor folk of Manchuria before the light of Japan drove them off and brought peace and prosperity to the grateful Manchurians. Later, Japan similarly liberated the good folk of Nanjing. Nazi Germany had a knack of picking morally pure allies.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not sure the liberal West has the moral highground on the imperialistic front. Poland under Prussia/Germany, or Algeria under French rule - there is an extent to which the former was considered the graver uncivilised act because it dealt with white Europeans.

It's good that anti-racists point out this hypocrisy.



Not that the mere fact of being imperialistic means that there is moral equivalence between all empires and all forms of imperialism. One would end up equating the wholesale slaughter of entire nations with the brutal oppression by the English of Scotland. (Not that the SNP would disagree there's a difference....)

[PanzerJaeger]

Becuze were naughty little imperialists.

You have shown me the light

Clever fellow. And how would you describe an argument claiming the moral superiority of one group of empires that based their conquests on racial superiority and native suppression fighting against another group of nations trying to establish empires based on the same principles? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an h.

[Sarmatian]

Allow me to rephrase. Why were the British available to be attacked in Asia? Why were they and the French and the Americans there?

Oooooh, PJ's taking out the big guns. I'm gonna get some popcorns...

[Pannonian]

Clever fellow. And how would you describe an argument claiming the moral superiority of one group of empires that based their conquests on racial superiority and native suppression fighting against another group of nations trying to establish empires based on the same principles? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an h.

Hextermination? After all, that's what the Nazis were reviled for, the attempt to eradicate other peoples. Even the Japanese didn't try that, although they contributed their own brand of extreme mass cruelty. But the Nazis, AFAIK, are alone in history in trying to cleanse this planet of certain peoples. That's what makes them the vilest ideology ever to walk this earth.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hextermination? After all, that's what the Nazis were reviled for, the attempt to eradicate other peoples. Even the Japanese didn't try that, although they contributed their own brand of extreme mass cruelty. But the Nazis, AFAIK, are alone in history in trying to cleanse this planet of certain peoples. That's what makes them the vilest ideology ever to walk this earth.

http://www.australianexplorer.com/au...an_history.htm

[Megas Methuselah]

http://www.australianexplorer.com/au...an_history.htm

Don't forget Newfoundland, among many others. Here's to your success, Louis: cheers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hextermination? After all, that's what the Nazis were reviled for, the attempt to eradicate other peoples. Even the Japanese didn't try that, although they contributed their own brand of extreme mass cruelty. But the Nazis, AFAIK, are alone in history in trying to cleanse this planet of certain peoples. That's what makes them the vilest ideology ever to walk this earth.

Not alone, sadly. Though most of the other examples would be tribal-style situations in the manner of Rwanda. Depending on your definition of extermination, some would include Serbian efforts in the Balkans during the last part of the 20th.

Nazi Germany stands alone, however, as the epitome of evil for its fiendish efficiency and horrifying committment to its genocidal goals. A modern "civilized" state harnessing a ridiculous portion of its capability for the purpose of eliminating whole groups of people simply because of their ethnic/genetic background. Pannonian, you are quite correct that this makes their ideology the vilest. Imperialism, for all its manifold faults and inherent racist attitude, was an attempt at political and economic domination and not eradication.

PJ: You should remind yourself that Germany played the "White Man's Burden" game just as assiduously as any other European power, so even if you accept the premise that Imperialism is somehow morally equivalent to planned genocide -- which I emphatically do not -- the Germans were no better than anyone else. They simply got a late start since functional unification did not occur until after the 1867 war.

Louis:

My comments on the "more effective killers" referred to the aerial campaign only. Germany's murderous efforts across the board far eclipsed the allies (at least if you discount Stalins efforts against his own people).

[Sarmatian]

some would include Serbian efforts in the Balkans during the last part of the 20th.

Must...resist...the...urge... The lure of the dark side is strong... Help me Obi-Wan, you're my only hope...

Seriously, nothing that happened in Yugoslavia comes even close, both in scale and severity, to WW2 atrocities. And this is rather recent and political, not historical yet, it belongs in the Backroom not the Monastery. So give yourself an infraction, go to your room and think about what you have just done.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sarmatian, Seamus merely writes that depending on one's definition, some would include Serbian efforts in the 1990's as genocide. However that may be - nobody, I think, is interested in rehashing all of that here - the point of his post, is that this is not comparable with the efforts of the Nazis in scale and severity.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

A lot of controversial subjects are touched upon in this thread. Quite unavoidably so, considering the subject. Modern German, Russian, British, American, French and Serbian history is explored here, sometimes in a very critical manner. There has to be leeway for controversial contemporary subjects, or we couldn't explore this fascinating topic.


Hmm...I was writing something elaborate here, but I just deleted it and instead I will write: Many would argue French neo-imperialist efforts played an unsavoury part in the events in Rwanda in the 1990's. Depending on one's definitions, some would say 'bears responsibility for genocide'.

If you catch my drift.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sarmatian, Seamus merely writes that depending on one's definition, some would include Serbian efforts in the 1990's as genocide. However that may be - nobody, I think, is interested in rehashing all of that here - the point of his post, is that this is not comparable with the efforts of the Nazis in scale and severity.

Louis is very accurately summarizing my position.

The scale, scope, and programmatic character of what occurred in the Balkans in the last decade of the 20th century was nowhere even remotely close to those perpetrated by the Nazis. While I noted that some choose to label those events genocide, I phrased it so as to indicate that that characterization was debatable. While it is obvious that some rather nasty events occurred, I am not sure that it was genocidal in character.

[Brenus]

“one group of empires that based their conquests on racial superiority and native suppression fighting against another group of nations trying to establish empires based on the same principles?”
Except as much I know, at least for the Second French Empire, the expansion was never based on this. It started to compensate the lost of Alsace Lorraine and the need of raw material and manpower for the Revanche.
All you describe came after, the duty of the white man and all others reason given to keep the Empire.
And perhaps it will sound familiar but as for Indochina, the French went to rescue Religious Minorities that were oppressed by a horrible tyrant. So they went to free the population from the Emperor of Hue Tu Duc in 1884…

Now, here what the People in charge were thinking:

“The Chinese is a thief and the Japanese an assassin; The Annamite both. This said, I highly recognise that these 3 races had virtues unknown to Europe and civilisation more advanced than our occidental civilisations. It would be convenient to us, masters of these populations, to win at least by our morality. I would be nice that we would, us, the colons, nor assassins or thieves. But this is a utopia.
To the unanimous eyes of the French Nation, the colonies get the reputation to be the last resort and the supreme asylum for all the outcasts from all the classes and from justice.
We host here the scum and the useless, the scroungers and the gate-crushers….
The ones that plant in Indo-China didn’t know to harvest in France; those who interchange were bankrupted; those who command to the literate Mandarins were the dry fruits of the Schools; and those who judge and sentence were sometimes judged and sentenced. After this, none can be surprised that in this country, the Western man is morally inferior to the Asiatic…
I saw, in this colonial plebe, so scorned, some valuable individuals.
To these, the surrounding and the climate were valuable.
They live on the edge of our too conventional life.
The birth of this kind of men is only possible in this Indo-China, so old and very new at the same time…”

[PanzerJaeger]

Comparisons between America's expansion westward and Germany's planned expansion eastward bear a striking resemblance to each other in attitudes, actions, and results. I found the BIA's own view of its history interesting.

In March of 1824, President James Monroe established the Office of Indian Affairs in the Department of War. Its mission was to conduct the nation's business with regard to Indian affairs. We have come together today to mark the first 175 years of the institution now known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

It is appropriate that we do so in the first year of a new century and a new millennium, a time when our leaders are reflecting on what lies ahead and preparing for those challenges. Before looking ahead, though, this institution must first look back and reflect on what it has wrought and, by doing so, come to know that this is no occasion for celebration; rather it is time for reflection and contemplation, a time for sorrowful truths to be spoken, a time for contrition.

We must first reconcile ourselves to the fact that the works of this agency have at various times profoundly harmed the communities it was meant to serve. From the very beginning, the Office of Indian Affairs was an instrument by which the United States enforced its ambition against the Indian nations and Indian people who stood in its path. And so, the first mission of this institution was to execute the removal of the southeastern tribal nations. By threat, deceit, and force, these great tribal nations were made to march 1,000 miles to the west, leaving thousands of their old, their young and their infirm in hasty graves along the Trail of Tears.

As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. War necessarily begets tragedy; the war for the West was no exception. Yet in these more enlightened times, it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the mighty bison herds, the use of the poison alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life. This agency and the good people in it failed in the mission to prevent the devastation. And so great nations of patriot warriors fell. We will never push aside the memory of unnecessary and violent death at places such as Sand Creek, the banks of the Washita River, and Wounded Knee.

Nor did the consequences of war have to include the futile and destructive efforts to annihilate Indian cultures. After the devastation of tribal economies and the deliberate creation of tribal dependence on the services provided by this agency, this agency set out to destroy all things Indian.

This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages, prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outlawed traditional government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. Even in this era of self -determination, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs is at long last serving as an advocate for Indian people in an atmosphere of mutual respect, the legacy of these misdeeds haunts us. The trauma of shame, fear and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country .Many of our people live lives of unrelenting tragedy as Indian families suffer the ruin of lives by alcoholism, suicides made of shame and despair, and violent death at the hands of one another. So many of the maladies suffered today in Indian country result from the failures of this agency. Poverty, ignorance, and disease have been the product of this agency's work.

And so today I stand before you as the leader of an institution that in the past has committed acts so terrible that they infect, diminish, and destroy the lives of Indian people decades later, generations later. These things occurred despite the efforts of many good people with good hearts who sought to prevent them. These wrongs must be acknowledged if the healing is to begin.

I do not speak today for the United States. That is the province of the nation's elected leaders, and I would not presume to speak on their behalf. I am empowered, however, to speak on behalf of this agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I am quite certain that the words that follow reflect the hearts of its 10,000 employees.

Let us begin by expressing our profound sorrow for what this agency has done in the past. Just like you, when we think of these misdeeds and their tragic consequences, our hearts break and our grief is as pure and complete as yours. We desperately wish that we could change this history, but of course we cannot. On behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I extend this formal apology to Indian people for the historical conduct of this agency.

And while the BIA employees of today did not commit these wrongs, we acknowledge that the institution we serve did. We accept this inheritance, this legacy of racism and inhumanity. And by accepting this legacy, we accept also the moral responsibility of putting things right.

We therefore begin this important work anew, and make a new commitment to the people and communities that we serve, a commitment born of the dedication we share with you to the cause of renewed hope and prosperity for Indian country. Never again will this agency stand silent when hate and violence are committed against Indians. Never again will we allow policy to proceed from the assumption that Indians possess less human genius than the other races. Never again will we be complicit in the theft of Indian property. Never again will we appoint false leaders who serve purposes other than those of the tribes. Never again will we allow unflattering and stereotypical images of Indian people to deface the halls of government or lead the American people to shallow and ignorant beliefs about Indians. Never again will we attack your religions, your languages, your rituals, or any of your tribal ways. Never again will we seize your children, nor teach them to be ashamed of who they are. Never again.

We cannot yet ask your forgiveness, not while the burdens of this agency's history weigh so heavily on tribal communities. What we do ask is that, together, we allow the healing to begin: As you return to your homes, and as you talk with your people, please tell them that time of dying is at its end. Tell your children that the time of shame and fear is over. Tell your young men and women to replace their anger with hope and love for their people. Together, we must wipe the tears of seven generations. Together, we must allow our broken hearts to mend. Together, we will face a challenging world with confidence and trust. Together, let us resolve that when our future leaders gather to discuss the history of this institution, it will be time to celebrate the rebirth of joy, freedom, and progress for the Indian Nations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was born in 1824 in a time of war on Indian people. May it live in the year 2000 and beyond as an instrument of their prosperity.

Remarks of Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs
Department of the Interior at the
Ceremony Acknowledging the 175th Anniversary
of the Establishment of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs
September 8, 2000

[Louis VI the Fat]

History is not one big blur, where every wrong is equal to another, or easily compared. It is commonly accepted that all (modern, big, western) countries have a warmongering past. Few ever hold anything against the Third Reich with a claim of complete innocence of their own past.

Events must be seen in their full historical light, not compared by resemblances alone. One does not compare the Germanic expansion in the fourth and fifth centuries with the quest for Lebensraum in the twentieth. One will end up like those confused anarcho-communists who maintain that the Berlin Wall was as trivial a wrong as the wall in the Arizona desert. Both are walls meant to stop people etc.


Me, I maintain that the greatest crime ever committed by mankind was my very own ancestor, Ugh the Cro Magnon cavepainter of Lascaux, who genocided an entire human species by killing the last neandertal.