Patton and War Crimes

For SFTS & Frags, here is just a basic rundown of the events surrounding the Biscari Massacre. He was also involved in the Canicatti Massacre to a lesser extent:

During the battle for Sicily in 1943, American troops of 180th Regimental Combat Team of the 45th Division (Thunderbolt) fought German and Italian forces for control of the Biscari Airfield, which changed hands several times.

After the airfield finally came under Allied control conclusively, American soldiers murdered 76 of their prisoners in two separate incidents. 34 Italians and two Germans were shot to death in the first, and 40 more Italians were killed in the second.

When news of these events made it to Gen. Omar Bradley, he sought Patton's opinion. From Patton's journal:

Quote:

---

I told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it.

---

Bradley refused to cover up the massacre, and demanded that someone be held accountable.

However, only two men were brought up on charges - despite the obvious duplicity of others in a crime of such magnitude.

More disturbing, however, was the defence both defendants mounted. They quoted a speech Patton gave to them earlier in the campaign, and claimed they were following orders:

Quote:

---

When we land against the enemy, don't forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender- oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. Stick him in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion he will fight less. We must build up that name as killers.

---

Several more soldiers said they were willing to give evidence that Patton had told them to take no prisoners. One officer claimed that Patton had said:

Quote:

---

The more prisoners we took, the more we'd have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners.

---

After the massacre it came out that Patton was said to have stated that the prisoners being shot in ordered rows was 'an even greater error.'

The defense was apparently successful. In order to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes, Bradley fast tracked the trials. For the first incident, the Army charged Sergeant Horace T. West. West admitted that he had participated in the shootings, was found guilty, stripped of rank and sentenced to life in prison. However, after serving just 6 months, he was released as a private.

For the second incident, the Army court martialed Captain John T. Compton for killing 40 POWs in his charge. He claimed to be following orders. The investigating officer and the Judge Advocate declared that Compton's actions were unlawful, but the court martial acquitted him. The Army transferred Compton to another regiment where he died a year later fighting in Italy.

Furthermore, the Army held neither Patton nor the unit commanding officer, Colonel E Cookson, to account in any way.



(Some summation via Wiki. Original sources: James Weingartner, `Massacre at Biscari: Patton and An American War Crime, The Historian LII, no. 1, (November 1989), 24-39.
Botting, Douglas & Sayer, Ian: Hitler's Last General: The case against Wilhelm Mohnke. Bantam Books, London, 1989, 354-9 )

Very interesting, gracias. I always suspected Patton was more badass then Brad Pitt.

My only question is such: if you do not mind answering, which side were you rooting for?








That said, I would not have expected anything else from Patton. :shrug:

Patton was true peacock. He often said archaic concepts like that , the man thought he was a descendant of great generals of rome.

how do you not love a man like that sometimes. Striking his soldiers though is inexcusable.

i recommend the movie Patton, is really very well done.

Hmmmm not a directly involved, still reprehensible.

I like Patton because he had a killer instinict that was bred into most European generals. This is the part that gets most overlooked in American canon. Patton could stand toe to toe with the best generals in Europe where as men like Bradley and Eisenhower simply lacked that go for the throat instinict.

Really the divergence came when many of Americas top military men fought for the south and were killed.

Its no surpirse that Patton is cut from the same cloth as Washington and Lee.

Thanks PJ

I thought he was a more grind-em-down kinda guy like Grant.

See: Littleton Waller in the Phillippines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smith

I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AP

My only question is such: if you do not mind answering, which side were you rooting for?

---

I wasn't there. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

how do you not love a man like that sometimes

---

The psychology behind this sentiment represents a very interesting aspect of victor's justice. Orders and attitudes that put Germans away for life make Patton "badass".

Sepp Dietrich, for example, was of similar rank to Patton, and he was every bit as "badass". His military exploits are legendary. He also had similar views towards POWs. They weren't to get in the way of success in the field. He got life, later reduced to 25 years.

Quote:

---

I like Patton because he had a killer instinct that was bred into most European generals. This is the part that gets most overlooked in American canon. Patton could stand toe to toe with the best generals in Europe where as men like Bradley and Eisenhower simply lacked that go for the throat instinict.

---

I agree. Patton was great because he fought to win at all costs among a bunch of careerists and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, he hailed from the one nation that wasn't fighting for its survival. America could afford to fight a gentleman's war, where politics and public opinion shared equal standing with battlefield success. In any other circumstances, in any other army, the slapping incident, for example, would not have sidelined his career. He would have made a brilliant Russian Marshal.

Shameful acts. Crimes in their own right. Not unique either, not unique to Patton.

In fact, there are so many allied war crimes, that if one adds up all their sordid acts, they left as many victims as the nazis took almost a week!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Unfortunately, he hailed from the one nation that wasn't fighting for its survival.

---

Oh, but that's not true. Germany and its many allies could've decided to just stay at home.
You're reading history backwards this way - Germany ended up fighting to cling on for dear life, but this can not be read backwards to absolve it. The nazis didn't start the war for survival. It was one of conquest and subjugation.

You make it sound like everyone should've been shooting POWs, Panzer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

In fact, there are so many allied war crimes, that if one adds up all their sordid acts, they left as many victims as the nazis took almost a week!

---

Be careful what you wish for. I have heard there are a number of historians working on just such an equation.

Quote:

---

Oh, but that's not true. Germany and its many allies could've decided to just stay at home.
You're reading history backwards this way - Germany ended up fighting to cling on for dear life, but this can not be read backwards to absolve it. The nazis didn't start the war for survival. It was one of conquest and subjugation.

---

I was talking mainly about Russia. Patton was more in line with Zhukov and Yeryomenko than his American and British contemporaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATPG

You make it sound like everyone should've been shooting POWs, Panzer.

---

That was not my intent. I only meant to demonstrate that such attitudes were not unique to any one military during WW2. Obviously, it should not be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I agree. Patton was great because he fought to win at all costs among a bunch of careerists and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, he hailed from the one nation that wasn't fighting for its survival. America could afford to fight a gentleman's war, where politics and public opinion shared equal standing with battlefield success. In any other circumstances, in any other army, the slapping incident, for example, would not have sidelined his career. He would have made a brilliant Russian Marshal.

---

It's truly a pity many of Americas best military minds lay in Confederate graves. Victims of there own geopgraphy :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Be careful what you wish for. I have heard there are a number of historians working on just such an equation.

---

Louis was obviously sarcastically asserting that even if you added all Allied war crimes up, you'd still get something equal to what the Nazis achieved in a week. Boy oh boy, those evil Allies.

I don't think that PJ's point was that allies were just as bad as the nazis, On the other hand, we shouldn't just ignore war crimes that weren't committed by the nazis.

Quote:

---

The psychology behind this sentiment represents a very interesting aspect of victor's justice. Orders and attitudes that put Germans away for life make Patton "badass".

Sepp Dietrich, for example, was of similar rank to Patton, and he was every bit as "badass". His military exploits are legendary. He also had similar views towards POWs. They weren't to get in the way of success in the field. He got life, later reduced to 25 years.

---

one of my favorite generals was erwin rommel. i am still impressed with military prowess over politics in many cases

Quote:

---

It's truly a pity many of Americas best military minds lay in Confederate graves. Victims of there own geopgraphy

---

Thats debatable. I agree that the southern generals were superior and the south has a fighting tradition (texas for example makes up 17% of americas armed forces) but there were excellent go for the throat generals in the North. a prime example would be Tecumseh Sherman.

and by the time of WW2 it no longer mattered. That generation was dead and gone and they would have had very little if any impact on the officers of america. There lessons lived on in military theory.

And George Washington was not a go for the throat general he was cool and calculating and waged a pseudo guerrilla defensive war.

Lee is of course a superb general but he also lost something with the death of his XO Jackson.

Once again, no one gives a care for the fate of the Philippines. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

one of my favorite generals was erwin rommel. i am still impressed with military prowess over politics in many cases

---

I don't really understand this Rommel obssesion. I admit Africa isn't my specialty, but from what I know, there wasn't anything so special about him. There are literally dozens of German generals I would give more credit to than to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Louis was obviously sarcastically asserting that even if you added all Allied war crimes up, you'd still get something equal to what the Nazis achieved in a week. Boy oh boy, those evil Allies.

---

Quite ineffective and slow they were. But yeah, we killed a lot in a week so they must have killed a lot, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Louis was obviously sarcastically asserting that even if you added all Allied war crimes up, you'd still get something equal to what the Nazis achieved in a week. Boy oh boy, those evil Allies.

---

I'm well aware of what he was saying. Do you understand what I was saying?

It is easy to make such a claim, but as more historians run the numbers, it will be hard to justify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmation

I don't really understand this Rommel obssesion. I admit Africa isn't my specialty, but from what I know, there wasn't anything so special about him. There are literally dozens of German generals I would give more credit to than to him.

---

Of course, but people in the West naturally focus on their own contribution... makes 'em feel important. :beam:

Quote:

---

I don't really understand this Rommel obssesion. I admit Africa isn't my specialty, but from what I know, there wasn't anything so special about him. There are literally dozens of German generals I would give more credit to than to him.

---

im talking ww2 generals in germany. i liked him persoanlly in his private life as well.

but whats impressive is how well he managed against both Patton and Montgomery as foes and with the italians to back him up (lol)

but no he isnt my favorite generals just my favorite of the ww2 germans.

Quote:

---

Once again, no one gives a care for the fate of the Philippines.

---

who macarthur? he was ok but i dislike him. mentally unstable in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

im talking ww2 generals in germany. i liked him persoanlly in his private life as well.

but whats impressive is how well he managed against both Patton and Montgomery as foes and with the italians to back him up (lol)

but no he isnt my favorite generals just my favorite of the ww2 germans.

---

Bah, I don't know... He showed some promise in France but then was relegated to Africa. He might have turned out great but he we'll never know. Also, his idea about putting tanks on the beaches, in range of heavy guns from the allied ships, during overlord makes you wonder about his military capabilities.

I feel it's more propaganda. Allies needed an explanation for the failures so they built up Rommel and DAK. "Ok we did perform poorly, but we were against the best of Wehrmacht fighting under best commander Wehrmacht has to offer" type of thing...

And neither Monty nor Patton deserve that much recognition in my book. Patton did show some glimpses of quality but he never had the opportunity to prove his skill in a large scale operation, so he's just an interesting "what if" for me, and the less said about Monty the better.

On the other hand, Patton is definitely the most interesting character among the Allied generals.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, Patton is definitely the most interesting character among the Allied generals.

---

oh yes hes one of those men, a peacock that you either love or hate. much like andrew jackson

Quote:

---

On the other hand, Patton is definitely the most interesting character among the Allied generals.

---

oh yes hes one of those men, a peacock that you either love or hate. much like andrew jackson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Louis was obviously sarcastically asserting that even if you added all Allied war crimes up, you'd still get something equal to what the Nazis achieved in a week. Boy oh boy, those evil Allies.

---

At least until you add Chiang Kai-Shek and Stalin...

Quote:

---

At least until you add Chiang Kai-Shek and Stalin...

---

So painfully true.

Erm, no. Adding in those two would maybe crank the Allied war crime tally up to, oh, something the Nazis and the Japanese did every six months or so. Maybe a year if you're lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm well aware of what he was saying. Do you understand what I was saying?

It is easy to make such a claim, but as more historians run the numbers, it will be hard to justify it.

---

Trying to morally equate the Allies with the Axis is a lost case from the beginning. Give it up.

Quote:

---

Trying to morally equate the Allies with the Axis is a lost case from the beginning. Give it up.

---

Truth.

Quote:

---

and the Japs did every six months or so. Maybe a year if you're lucky.

---

You should try to avoid saying jap, many people find it offensive.

Edit: actually im sure you know, never mind.

Edit2: patton is on tv right now where i live.

Quote:

---

who macarthur? he was ok but i dislike him. mentally unstable in my eyes.

---

I was referring to the atrocities committed by America in its war in the Philippines.

Quote:

---

I was referring to the atrocities committed by America in its war in the Philippines.

---

:shrug:

what about the rape of china or the bataan death march, the japanese were nasty little buggers no doubt about it.

Quote:

---

The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog....

---

Not America's finest moment.

Quote:

---

Not America's finest moment.

---

the pacific was a bloody no holds barred war that was second pony behind the european theater. most people don't know how terrible the war was for both navy men and the marines who had to take those tiny islands.

all in all america's fighting men performed far more humanely than the japanese.

But I'm not talking about WW2!

Quote:

---

But I'm not talking about WW2!

---

your talking about before? thats irrelevant to this thread topic. ill just trot out an example fo some other agression before the war for japan.

Quote:

---

your talking about before? thats irrelevant to this thread topic. ill just trot out an example fo some other agression before the war for japan.

---

I'm not comparing American and Japanese war crimes. I was originally making a point about the similarity between General Patton's and General Smith's "orders" in WW2 and the Philippine-American War, respectively. We seem to have gotten off track there.

Aza your fighting a losing battle.

The American occupation of the philipines at the turn of the century isn't even taught in schools

yes mostly due to misunderstanding each other. yes there is definitely a similarity with a key difference. smith was fighting an insurrection and patton was fighting a war technically by the geneva convention.

i would probably look sideways at all the flips in that situation too if they were shooting me from th bushes one day and then selling me a soda the next.

doesnt excuse the killings of course, just explains the paranoia better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yes mostly due to misunderstanding each other. yes there is definitely a similarity with a key difference. smith was fighting an insurrection and patton was fighting a war technically by the geneva convention.

i would probably look sideways at all the flips in that situation too if they were shooting me from th bushes one day and then selling me a soda the next.

doesnt excuse the killings of course, just explains the paranoia better.

---

So an inseruction isnt guided by Geneva?

That should make Iraq and Afghanistan allot eaiser then...

Quote:

---

So an inseruction isnt guided by Geneva?

That should make Iraq and Afghanistan allot eaiser then...

---

no i believe it is, wha ti am saying is that you are going to be much more suspicious of the natives when your fighting a rebellion rather than liberating a country.

There's certainly some interesting parallels between that war and the Vietnam War.

• Guerrilla War in Southeast Asia
• Americans + Collaborators vs Revolutionaries
• America Asked by Revolutionaries For Aid Against Colonial Oppressors (Spanish)
• Previous War of Independence Against Said Oppressors
• Similar War Crimes on Both Sides (killing of civilians by Americans, collaborators by Filipinos, the old "bury-them-neck-deep-in-dirt-and-leave-them-for-the-ants" trick)
• Exposure of Brutality of War by American Media
• Anti-war Activism by Well-Known Figures/"Celebrities"
• Ridiculously High Native Casualties (Philippines - up to 1.2 million (~15%), Vietnam - up to 5 million (~12%)

I guess America technically beat the Filipinos, but they had to give up the islands 30 years later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yes mostly due to misunderstanding each other. yes there is definitely a similarity with a key difference. smith was fighting an insurrection and patton was fighting a war technically by the geneva convention.

i would probably look sideways at all the flips in that situation too if they were shooting me from th bushes one day and then selling me a soda the next.

doesnt excuse the killings of course, just explains the paranoia better.

---

"Flips"?

Pejorative for "Felipe's"?

George Washington was fighting an insurrection. Freedom is relative.

The American and British obsession with Rommel doesn't come from trying to cover up our inadequecies, but from the fact that the dude consistently kicked our butts. The US and UK really didn't have so many set back and outright defeats handed to them by anyone other than Rommel, so the acheivments of other German generals - say Mannstein - go overlooked because Mannstein never had the opportunity to beat the tar out of us. So it stems mainly from ignorance.

Quote:

---

"Flips"?

---

have you guys ever met filipinos. as a navy brat they sort of follow around the bases like a little entourage doing all the tasks neede dto keep it running, marrying sailors (i have alot of half asian friends) etc.

They go by filipino or flip for short for all the ones i meet. it isnt insulting or anything. its just shorting the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

It's truly a pity many of Americas best military minds lay in Confederate graves. Victims of there own geopgraphy :shame:

---

Geography? Is that what the US civil war was all about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

no i believe it is, wha ti am saying is that you are going to be much more suspicious of the natives when your fighting a rebellion rather than liberating a country.

---

Fighting a rebelion, liberating a country. Are you sure about both those mission objectives?

The US annexed the Philipines and installed more US friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan - which some might go as far as to term "proxies".

I am currently reading an essay on Patton. Well, he was a strange guy to say the least: loved by (most of) his men, in a constant competition for fame with Montgommery and a daredevilish general.

On the other hand: He despised jews, blacks & homosexuals.

He sort of admired the SS in a strange way. When the war was won, the Western politicians realized that there was a big threat coming from the Soviet Union.. General Patton was dreaming of rearming a couple of Waffen SS divisions to incorporate them into his US Third Army "and lead them against the Reds". Patton had put this plan quite seriously to General Joseph T. McNarney, deputy US military governor in Germany.

In Bad Tölz the 17. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division surrendered to him and saluted him with "S*** Heil!". He was very impressed not to say overwhelmed.


#Considering the above I would not be surprised in case he protected war criminals.

Quote:

---

Fighting a rebelion, liberating a country. Are you sure about both those mission objectives?

The US annexed the Philipines and installed more US friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan - which some might go as far as to term "proxies".

---

lol i was talking about ww2 and the Philippines. jumping to conclusions, neh?

Quote:

---

Geography? Is that what the US civil war was all about?

---

It was for Lee and Jackson the two best confederate generals and amny other southern officers. Lee didnt even like slavery....... which makes the civil war all the bitter. The southerners doing the actual fighting were all the poor white boys fighting for an ideal they would probably never reach and never be accepted, that of planter status. The planters sat at home (with notable exceptions of course)" keeping down" slave insurrections

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Geography? Is that what the US civil war was all about?

---

Quite, actually. Many a soldier fought for their state simply out of loyalty. The most famous example would be Mr. Lee, who Centurion has already pointed out. Lincoln himself was rather racist, although quite a moderate given his contemparies, and his goal was to strengthen the North, not to free slaves. Not to say that race wasn't an issue, but most Northerners fought because the South just seceded from the USA. The South obviously found the loss in plantation revenue alarming, but the poor white workers with no land didn't have much to do with that.

So Lee fighting to keep Slavery was a none racist when Lincoln, racist, abolish slavery…
Give me more of the second who went against his prejudices and less of the first fighting to keep injustice on the name of what: Caste privileges.
For sure, abolition was not the goal of the war, but Union. But it was still Lincoln who abolish slaver after Antietam (?), preventing a general revolt in the plantation as the slaves knew freedom would come, it was no need to raise up…
This probably saved USA from another big problem…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

It was [all about geography] for Lee and Jackson the two best confederate generals and amny other southern officers. Lee didnt even like slavery....... which makes the civil war all the bitter. The southerners doing the actual fighting were all the poor white boys fighting for an ideal they would probably never reach and never be accepted, that of planter status. The planters sat at home (with notable exceptions of course)" keeping down" slave insurrections

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Quite [all about geography], actually. Many a soldier fought for their state simply out of loyalty. The most famous example would be Mr. Lee, who Centurion has already pointed out. Lincoln himself was rather racist, although quite a moderate given his contemparies, and his goal was to strengthen the North, not to free slaves. Not to say that race wasn't an issue, but most Northerners fought because the South just seceded from the USA. The South obviously found the loss in plantation revenue alarming, but the poor white workers with no land didn't have much to do with that.

---

Right, that is no different to almost any other war -people fighting for their own interests and those of the people close to them. To call it "geography" is apologistic, presenting the motivation as a regretable accident of fate rather than a timeless truism that Humans are selfish and self motivated. Did Lee not go to West Point? Did he not swear fealty to the Republic as all West-pointers did?

I agree with Brenus regarding who should receive more plaudits: the one pushing progress and the alleviation of suffering (although its not like there was ever speedy or swift progress for Blacks...). Even 'Mr Humanist par excellence' Thomas Jefferson, despite abhoring the concept of slavery, continued to own slaves on his plantation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So Lee fighting to keep Slavery was a none racist when Lincoln, racist, abolish slavery…
Give me more of the second who went against his prejudices and less of the first fighting to keep injustice on the name of what: Caste privileges.
For sure, abolition was not the goal of the war, but Union. But it was still Lincoln who abolish slaver after Antietam (?), preventing a general revolt in the plantation as the slaves knew freedom would come, it was no need to raise up…
This probably saved USA from another big problem…

---

Contrary sir, Lincoln freed no slaves. He emancipated slaves in lands over which he had no control. The slaves he had control over, he did not emancipate. In a way we could say that Lincoln was a terrorist. His purpose for emancipation was not to "prevent a general revolt in the plantation," rather he was hoping this step would incite slave revolts and make the war easier for the North to win.

Slavery in the U.S. is a topic we should avoid placing blame on as all were culpable. The first abolitionist society counted B. Franklin and Dr B. Rush as founding members, both owned slaves prior to that. John Adams father-in-law, a Massachuesettes preacher, home of the abolitionist Yankees - slaveholder. Who made fortunes importing slaves? Those same Yankees.

Lee? Father was govenor of Virginia. Uncle proposed independence for the colonies, that Lee? He never owned slaves. He probably believed in the states right to secede just as much as the people in the Hartford Convention, yet when his state legislature asked his opinion he advised them not to. Look up those Hartford Convention guys. Simply put it's best not to try and put any Americans on the morale high ground when it comes to slavery, they were all stained.

Quote:

---

Contrary sir, Lincoln freed no slaves. He emancipated slaves in lands over which he had no control. The slaves he had control over, he did not emancipate. In a way we could say that Lincoln was a terrorist. His purpose for emancipation was not to "prevent a general revolt in the plantation," rather he was hoping this step would incite slave revolts and make the war easier for the North to win.

Slavery in the U.S. is a topic we should avoid placing blame on as all were culpable. The first abolitionist society counted B. Franklin and Dr B. Rush as founding members, both owned slaves prior to that. John Adams father-in-law, a Massachuesettes preacher, home of the abolitionist Yankees - slaveholder. Who made fortunes importing slaves? Those same Yankees.

Lee? Father was govenor of Virginia. Uncle proposed independence for the colonies, that Lee? He never owned slaves. He probably believed in the states right to secede just as much as the people in the Hartford Convention, yet when his state legislature asked his opinion he advised them not to. Look up those Hartford Convention guys. Simply put it's best not to try and put any Americans on the morale high ground when it comes to slavery, they were all stained.

---

George Washington, Monroe, Madison, Jackson....... the list goes on and on and on. Its best to look beyond slavery when judging early presidents otherwise most of our founding fathers, if not all, would be evil. My point is that for many of the south's soldiers who were superior fighters better led it was a matter of geography. The issue of slavery was just the spark that blew up the Union. It is not the dominating reasont he war occured. what happened was the south was afraid of being outvoted on EVERYTHING but especially slavery after being so dominant in politics for so long.

Ah. Again.
Lee and Lincoln and the thin separation between men, the moving fence between good and evil, we can be all nazi depending circumstances etc.
Was Lincoln a successful Milosevic?

Lincoln never owned slaves. One said he was racist. Perhaps. But the result of his political life was to free the slaves. It was not the goal, but the result.
You can say want you want. In declaring that all slaves will be free, he set-up the term for the Confederation for peace… Not return to post war situation.
Lee was perhaps a good man, but he fought for a bad cause. Did the South have the right to secession? I don’t know, but in starting the war it stop all others options for negotiation.
So whatever Lee was thinking about slavery he fought to keep it.

One frees the slaves.
One fights to keep them in chains…

My choice is clear…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

all in all america's fighting men performed far more humanely than the japanese.

---

Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.

Ain´t Patton and war crimes the topic here? I was really interested in the opinions about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.

---

https://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3391/orlmente.jpg

I know an 87 year old man whom disagrees with you, Hans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I know an 87 year old man whom disagrees with you, Hans

---

I'm starting to feel like a broken record. The information is all out there.

Excuse me, PJ, but are you trying to say that there was no difference between Allies/Soviets and Nazis? If so, you really shouldn't bother...

Quote:

---

Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.

---

Are you attempting to take a **** on my family history. And even if they did shoot prisoners that is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING like physically raping thousands of women and killing thousands more civilians. And how about Japanese POW camps, real human those places.

You are agruing a totally bogus point by trying to match a cucumber with a zucchini.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.

---

Furthermore the Japanese never actually committed any war crimes because they never signed on for the Geneva Convention rights anyhow, amirite?
/sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Excuse me, PJ, but are you trying to say that there was no difference between Allies/Soviets and Nazis? If so, you really shouldn't bother...

---

Don't you think you should separate the Western Allies from the Soviets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Are you attempting to take a **** on my family history.

---

I'm attempting to depict history accurately, which, surprisingly, doesn't always fall in line with The Sands of Iwo Jima.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

And even if they did shoot prisoners that is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING like physically raping thousands of women and killing thousands more civilians.

---

The irony is staggering. How can you take such offence and be so clueless at the same time?

Quote:

---

Still, the villagers' tale of a dark, long-kept secret has refocused attention on what historians say is one of the most widely ignored crimes of the war, the widespread rape of Okinawan women by American servicemen.

---

Ah, but they didn't just rape civilians and shoot prisoners. They also ripped the gold fillings out of their heads - alive or dead. They tore them limb from limb for souvenirs. They traded Japanese ears amongst themselves for cigarettes and chocolates. They decapitated Japanese POWs with their bayonets, boiled their skulls and sent them home to their mothers and girlfriends. These actions were common and widely accepted by both grunts and officers. Do I need to make another thread?

Now, I’m sorry your American History classes have failed you in this respect, but please refrain from further righteous indignation until you figure out what really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

Furthermore the Japanese never actually committed any war crimes because they never signed on for the Geneva Convention rights anyhow, amirite?

---

You may want to consider returning to lurking.

“Don't you think you should separate the Western Allies from the Soviets?” No.
Well-done PZ.
About US killings and all the others things you describe, we know the US (and others) soldiers were not exempt of cruelty. If you just watch the treatment by the US media of that time concerning the Japanese you’ve got a clue…
However, nothing match in the Allies side (including Soviet) the horrors started and launched by the Nazi and their Japanese allies…
You successfully try to twist history and I admire the job. You just illustrate what was my research when I was in University: How to modify a perception of an historical event in a manner that fits our view. You have your representation (allies = nazi, so nazi not sooo guilty if not guilty at all…).
I do enjoy this..

PJ im not saying that the US always did the correct thing. But compared to the Japanese they were far better and the same applies to the nazis as well.

i dont know how you can defend this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Don't you think you should separate the Western Allies from the Soviets?

---

Possibly, but neither were nowhere near as bad as Nazis or the Japanese.

Unfortunately, cruelty is a part of war. There hasn't been a war without it and there hasn't been an army that hasn't committed some cruel acts. The degree varies but it was never institutionalized like it was within the Wehrmacht and the Japanese army. It has never happened in the entire history of the world. And, no, Aztecs or some African tribes are not a valid comparison.

Now, on the other hand, you haven't answered the question - Do you believe that there is no difference between Allies or Soviets and the Nazis or Japanese?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

You have your representation (allies = nazi, so nazi not sooo guilty if not guilty at all…).

---

Your words, not mine.

While I did find your thesis entertaining, it is not particularly correct. I started this thread because I was asked about the topic in another thread and I felt it deviated too much from what was being discussed there. I do not believe I have mentioned Nazis or Germans yet, except incidentally in the original post.

I understand that the subject of Allied war crimes makes many people uncomfortable. It doesn't fit into the post-war narrative we were all taught in school. However, if you or anyone else has a problem with what has been said, I suggest you take it up with the historical record, instead of trying to paint me as on some sort of one man Nazi vindication campaign.

I would much rather be talking tanks and battles and such, but if people are going to make declarative statements based on 6th grade truisms like "our boys would never rape civilians" that are patently false, then I will address them accordingly.

It is funny. There are countless books, documentaries, etc. documenting Nazi and Japanese crimes during the war. I believe there was even a thread about the Wehrmacht's crimes here in the monastery a few months back. No one’s denying them. However, when that same spotlight is turned on the Allies' conduct, hostility arises. I must have some sort of revisionist agenda to even bring it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurian1

PJ im not saying that the US always did the correct thing. But compared to the Japanese they were far better and the same applies to the nazis as well.

i dont know how you can defend this

---

And I'm not sure how you can still make that statement after reading the information I shared earlier. Let me find you some more information. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Possibly, but neither were nowhere near as bad as Nazis or the Japanese.

---

Can you expand on this a bit in regard to the Soviets? I'm trying to think of the worst things the Nazis did off the top of my head, and everything I can think of was either comparably duplicated by the Soviets or even worse.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, cruelty is a part of war. There hasn't been a war without it and there hasn't been an army that hasn't committed some cruel acts. The degree varies but it was never institutionalized like it was within the Wehrmacht and the Japanese army. It has never happened in the entire history of the world. And, no, Aztecs or some African tribes are not a valid comparison.

---

I completely disagree. It might work if you replaced "institutionalized" with "industrialized", but you certainly don't have to look back as far as the Aztecs to find widespread institutional cruelty and war crimes in human history.

Quote:

---

Now, on the other hand, you haven't answered the question - Do you believe that there is no difference between Allies or Soviets and the Nazis or Japanese?

---

I appreciate the interest, but I don't think my personal beliefs have any bearing on a historical discussion.

"I'm trying to think of the worst things the Nazis did off the top of my head" Treblinka.

"I'm trying to think of the worst things the Nazis did off the top of my head" Treblinka. Kolyma.

From your own source: “Hard work in the Soviet labor camp, harsh climate and meager food, poor health”.

Not built to kill all passengers of a train in 2 hours, time needed for the train to refuel and turn…

Still have to find a EXTERMINATION camp in Soviet Union PZ. But you had the one I was expected, as it is the most famous…

Treblinka: June,22, 1942 – November 1943: about 850,000 people were killed here - Jews from occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Yugoslavia and USSR, as well as from Germany and Austria. Polish and German Gypsies were also sent to Treblinka.

Sobibor: in 18 months at least 250,000 men, women, and children were murdered. Only 48 Sobibor prisoners survived the war, thanks to an escape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can you expand on this a bit in regard to the Soviets? I'm trying to think of the worst things the Nazis did off the top of my head, and everything I can think of was either comparably duplicated by the Soviets or even worse.

---

Let's put it this way, shall we - Soviets and Allies together killed less German civilians than Germany killed Russian civilians. You don't even have to add Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece... If we add Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese the difference is like comparing a glass of water to an ocean.

Now, if you have data that makes those numbers comparable, feel free to share them and then we can have a meaningful discussion. Citing incidents where Soviets or Allies or various resistance movements committed war crimes (and I agree it happened and that it shouldn't be covered up) doesn't change the big picture in the slightest.

https://img294.imageshack.us/img294/...thsbyallia.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Let's put it this way, shall we - Soviets and Allies together killed less German civilians than Germany killed Russian civilians. You don't even have to add Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece... If we add Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese the difference is like comparing a glass of water to an ocean.

Now, if you have data that makes those numbers comparable, feel free to share them and then we can have a meaningful discussion. Citing incidents where Soviets or Allies or various resistance movements committed war crimes (and I agree it happened and that it shouldn't be covered up) doesn't change the big picture in the slightest.

---

Also, are there any Allied equivalents of Mengele and Unit 731?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

From your own source: “Hard work in the Soviet labor camp, harsh climate and meager food, poor health”.

---

Actually, my link said:

Quote:

---

In 1937, at the height of the Purges, Stalin ordered an intensification of the hardships prisoners were forced to endure.[4] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn quotes camp commander Naftaly Frenkel as establishing the new law of the Archipelago: "We have to squeeze everything out of a prisoner in the first three months — after that we don't need him anymore." [5] The system of hard labor and minimal or no food reduced most prisoners to helpless "goners" (dokhodyaga, in Russian).

Robert Conquest, Yevgenia Ginzburg, Anne Applebaum, Adam Hochschild and others (see bibliography) describe the Kolyma camps in some detail. The suffering of the prisoners was exacerbated by the presence of ordinary criminals, who terrorized the "political" prisoners. Death in the Kolyma camps came in many forms, including: overwork, starvation, malnutrition, mining accidents, exposure, murder at the hands of criminals, and beatings at the hands of guards. A director of the Sevvostlag complex of camps, colonel Sergey Garanin is said to have personally shot whole brigades of prisoners for not fulfilling their daily quotas in the late 1930s.[6] Escape was difficult, owing to the climate and physical isolation of the region, but some still attempted it. Escapees, if caught, were often torn to shreds by camp guard dogs. The use of torture as punishment was also common. Soviet dissident historian Roy Medvedev has compared the conditions in the Kolyma camps to Auschwitz.

---

Further, it goes on to say:

Quote:

---

In Bitter Days of Kolyma, Ayyub Baghirov, an Azerbaijani accountant who was finally rehabilitated, provides details of his arrest, torture and sentencing to eight (finally to become 18) years imprisonment in a labour camp for refusing to incriminate a fellow official for financial irregularities. Describing the train journey to Siberia, he writes: "The terrible heat, the lack of fresh air, the unbearable overcrowded conditions all exhausted us. We were all half starved. Some of the elderly prisoners, who had become so weak and emaciated, died along the way. Their corpses were left abandoned alongside the railroad tracks."

Another vivid account of the conditions in Kolyma is that of Brother Gene Thompson of Kiev's Faith Mission. He recounts how he met Vyacheslav Palman, a prisoner who survived because he knew how to grow cabbages. Palman spoke of how guards read out the names of those to be shot every evening. On one occasion a group of 169 men were shot and thrown into a pit. Their fully clothed bodies were found after the ice melted in 1998.

---

Anyway, you seem to be arguing that the method of killing is the distinction - that it is somehow worse to kill people with poison gas than to slowly work and starve them to death. I just don't see much distinction, other than being starved to death entails a far longer period of suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmation

WikiChart

---

I was very surprised to see that you posted that chart. I would expect such sloppyness from others, but from our previous discussions, I know that you know your history better than that. Now I'm questioning my vote. ~;)

Anyway, I would think anyone who has spent any time studying the war would realize that a chart entitled "WW2 Deaths" broken down into Axis and Allied military and civilian deaths would represent data very different than a chart that depicted Axis and Allied deaths directly caused by the enemy.

And sure enough, a simple perusal of the footnotes to that chart shows that counted in "Allied Civilian Deaths" include millions who died in ways that are somewhat difficult to blame on the Axis. Here are some of my favorites:

-famine in unoccupied zones
-disease in unoccupied zones
-Nationalist Chinese repression
-Chinese Communist repression
-other Chinese repression from various warlords
-French killed during Allied air raids
-Koreans who died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
-Micronesian war related civilian deaths caused by American bombing and shellfire; and malnutrition caused by the U.S. blockade of the islands
-Polish citizens who perished due to Soviet repression
-Stalin's repression of his own people, including deaths in the Gulag system

Now, I'll give you a gold star if you can somehow pin those who died in Stalin's Gulags on Germany. :laugh4:

Anyway, the reality is that the disproportionality represented in that chart - apart from Allied repression and bombing of Allied civilians - is mainly due to the Soviet and Chinese inability to feed their own people and contain disease. If you were to take those two out, and compare civilian losses between 1st world nations like Britain, France and the US - I believe the proportions would be more evenly matched. An argument could be made that by simply starting the war the Axis countries were responsible for those deaths, but such an argument would be severely undercut by the fact that those nations couldn't even feed and treat their own people before the war due to collectivist schemes in Russia and poor infrastructure due to Western repression and internal strife in China. Regardless, the facts behind that chart represent a little bit different picture than the one you were (I assume) trying to paint.

As to your point - that the Axis killed more civilians than the Allies during the war - I've never argued otherwise. Now if you want to look at the whole scope of Russian and Chinese communism, that's a different story - but that is not what is being discussed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Also, are there any Allied equivalents of Mengele and Unit 731?

---

The London Cage comes to mind. Of course, there was no medical pretense to what went on there - just pure unadulterated torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The London Cage comes to mind. Of course, there was no medical pretense to what went on there - just pure unadulterated torture.

---

You're seriously comparing that to what Mengele and Unit 731 did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I was very surprised to see that you posted that chart. I would expect such sloppyness from others, but from our previous discussions, I know that you know your history better than that. Now I'm questioning my vote. ~;)

Anyway, I would think anyone who has spent any time studying the war would realize that a chart entitled "WW2 Deaths" broken down into Axis and Allied military and civilian deaths would represent data very different than a chart that depicted Axis and Allied deaths directly caused by the enemy.

And sure enough, a simple perusal of the footnotes to that chart shows that counted in "Allied Civilian Deaths" include millions who died in ways that are somewhat difficult to blame on the Axis. Here are some of my favorites:

-famine in unoccupied zones
-disease in unoccupied zones
-Nationalist Chinese repression
-Chinese Communist repression
-other Chinese repression from various warlords
-French killed during Allied air raids
-Koreans who died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
-Micronesian war related civilian deaths caused by American bombing and shellfire; and malnutrition caused by the U.S. blockade of the islands
-Polish citizens who perished due to Soviet repression
-Stalin's repression of his own people, including deaths in the Gulag system

Now, I'll give you a gold star if you can somehow pin those who died in Stalin's Gulags on Germany. :laugh4:

Anyway, the reality is that the disproportionality represented in that chart - apart from Allied repression and bombing of Allied civilians - is mainly due to the Soviet and Chinese inability to feed their own people and contain disease. If you were to take those two out, and compare civilian losses between 1st world nations like Britain, France and the US - I believe the proportions would be more evenly matched. An argument could be made that by simply starting the war the Axis countries were responsible for those deaths, but such an argument would be severely undercut by the fact that those nations couldn't even feed and treat their own people before the war due to collectivist schemes in Russia and poor infrastructure due to Western repression and internal strife in China. Regardless, the facts behind that chart represent a little bit different picture than the one you were (I assume) trying to paint.

As to your point - that the Axis killed more civilians than the Allies during the war - I've never argued otherwise. Now if you want to look at the whole scope of Russian and Chinese communism, that's a different story - but that is not what is being discussed here.

---

C'mon, PJ, you can do better than that. Do you have the data how many people in Soviet Union died outside occupied areas? Or in China? Do you really think it would change the overall ratio THAT MUCH? Instead of 58%, how much would it be? 52%? 42%? 30%?

The only way you can seriously question established figures is with different figures. Mentioning Allied crimes one by one won't get you anywhere. Take away ALL Soviet and Chinese civilian casualties and still Axis civilian casualties were much smaller than Allied.

You can't because you don't know and you're trying to push your agenda by spamming/mentioning various incidents. So, for the third time, bring different numbers to the discussion. I'm all for revisionism but only when it is backed up with proper data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The only way you can seriously question established figures is with different figures. Mentioning Allied crimes one by one won't get you anywhere. Take away ALL Soviet and Chinese civilian casualties and still Axis civilian casualties were much smaller than Allied.

You can't because you don't know and you're trying to push your agenda by spamming/mentioning various incidents. So, for the third time, bring different numbers to the discussion. I'm all for revisionism but only when it is backed up with proper data.

---

In PJ-world, an Allied camp where German prisoners were beaten and shouted at is equivalent to Axis institutions where prisoners were dissected alive while fully conscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Quite, actually. Many a soldier fought for their state simply out of loyalty. The most famous example would be Mr. Lee, who Centurion has already pointed out. Lincoln himself was rather racist, although quite a moderate given his contemparies, and his goal was to strengthen the North, not to free slaves. Not to say that race wasn't an issue, but most Northerners fought because the South just seceded from the USA. The South obviously found the loss in plantation revenue alarming, but the poor white workers with no land didn't have much to do with that.

---

A passage with the quotes from letters written by a Union soldier may serve to illustrate the contrary...

Like hundreds of thousands of other Americans, Marcus M. Spiegel volunteered in 1861 to fight in the Civil War. Born into a Jewish family in Germany in 1829, Spiegel took part in the failed German revolution of 1848. In the following year he emigrated to Ohio, where he married the daughter of a local farmer. When the Civil War broke out, the nation's 150,000 Jews represented less than 1 percent of the total population. But Spiegel shared wholeheartedly in American patriotism. He went to war, he wrote to his brother-in-law, to defend "the flag that was ever ready to protect you and me and every one who has sought its protection from oppression."

Spiegel rose to the rank of colonel in the 120th Ohio Infantry and saw action in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana. He corresponded frequently with his wife, Caroline. "I have seen and learned much," he wrote in 1863. "I have seen men dying of disease and mangled by the weapons of the death; I have witnessed hostile armies arrayed against each other, the charge of infantry, [and] cavalry hunting men down like beasts." But he never wavered in his commitment to the "glorious cause" of preserving the Union and its heritage of freedom.

What one Pennsylvania recruit called "the magic word Freedom" shaped how many Union soldiers understood the conflict. The war's purpose, wrote Samuel McIlvane, a sergeant from Indiana, was to preserve the American nation as "the beacon light of liberty and freedom to the human race." But as the war progressed, prewar understandings of liberty gave way to something new. Millions of northerners who had not been abolitionists became convinced that preserving the Union as an embodiment of liberty required the destruction of slavery.

Marcus Spiegel's changing views mirrored the transformation of a struggle to save the Union into a war to end slavery. Spiegel was an ardent Democrat. He shared the era's racist attitudes and thought Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation a serious mistake. Yet as the Union army penetrated the heart of the Deep South, Spiegel became increasingly opposed to slavery. "Since I am here," he wrote to his wife from Louisiana in January 1864, "I have learned and seen . . . the horrors of slavery. You know it takes me long to say anything that sounds antidemocratic [opposed to Democratic Party policies], but . . . never hereafter will I either speak or vote in favor of slavery."

Marcus Spiegel was killed in a minor engagement in Louisiana in May 1864, one of 620,000 Americans to perish in the Civil War.

(Taken from Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History, Volume I (New York 2009), p. 480-482)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.

---

...

No comment. No ******* comment. This is too outrageously ridiculous a claim to even take seriously. Your unrelenting and utterly misguided crusade to make the Allies as black as the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese continues, to the hilarity of all. Try telling that :daisy: to any of the victims of Nanjing. Or any professional historian of any merit whatsoever. Take a shot. See what happens, champ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

I'm starting to feel like a broken record. The information is all out there.

---

Oh, but you are, chum, you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

C'mon, PJ, you can do better than that. Do you have the data how many people in Soviet Union died outside occupied areas? Or in China? Do you really think it would change the overall ratio THAT MUCH? Instead of 58%, how much would it be? 52%? 42%? 30%?

---

Are you serious? You throw up a chart that includes those who died in the Gulags and under Nationalist Chinese repression and try and pass it off as some sort of representation of the proportionality of those killed by the Axis countries and then question me about numbers? :dizzy2:

In any event, those that died of disease and famine in unoccupied zones alone ranges into the tens of millions. So yes, removing those from the equation, not to mention the litany of other non-axis deaths in your chart that I touched on, would have a dramatic effect on the outcome.

Quote:

---

You can't because you don't know and you're trying to push your agenda by spamming/mentioning various incidents. So, for the third time, bring different numbers to the discussion. I'm all for revisionism but only when it is backed up with proper data.

---

You and Brenus seem to know more about my intentions than I do. Can you please explain what my agenda is, and how I've been "spamming" it? Furthermore, can you please cite any inaccurate information I've provided in this or any other thread?

Seems to me, hearing about Allied war crimes makes some people uncomfortable. Don't shoot the messenger. As I said before, I started this thread because people asked me about the topic. I presented the information in as objective a way as possible. I only jumped back into the thread when the statement "all in all America's fighting men performed far more humanely than the japanese" was made. It was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

You got it right the first time when you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmation

I don't think that PJ's point was that allies were just as bad as the nazis, On the other hand, we shouldn't just ignore war crimes that weren't committed by the nazis.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonion

In PJ-world, an Allied camp where German prisoners were beaten and shouted at is equivalent to Axis institutions where prisoners were dissected alive while fully conscious.

---

Surely you meant to say "beaten until they begged to be killed", among other various delights. Of course, when the British torture people, it's just adorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

No comment. No ******* comment. This is too outrageously ridiculous a claim to even take seriously. Your unrelenting and utterly misguided crusade to make the Allies as black as the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese continues, to the hilarity of all. Try telling that to any of the victims of Nanjing. Or any professional historian of any merit whatsoever. Take a shot. See what happens, champ.

---

From one of my earlier posts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Ah, but they [American military personnel] didn't just rape civilians and shoot prisoners. They also ripped the gold fillings out of their heads - alive or dead. They tore them limb from limb for souvenirs. They traded Japanese ears amongst themselves for cigarettes and chocolates. They decapitated Japanese POWs with their bayonets, boiled their skulls and sent them home to their mothers and girlfriends. These actions were common and widely accepted by both grunts and officers.

---

You're welcome to disprove this. I'll be waiting. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

Are you serious? You throw up a chart that includes those who died in the Gulags and under Nationalist Chinese repression and try and pass it off as some sort of representation of the proportionality of those killed by the Axis countries and then question me about numbers? :dizzy2:

---

Are you serious? You throw up the extremely weak and dubitable argument that, magically, famine brought on by war declared by Nazi Germany and Japan (respectively) is to be blamed on the Soviet Union and the Chinese (which never would have experienced those famines if they hadn't been invaded by these two murderous regimes) and you're arguing numbers? :dizzy2:

Get real, PJ. Your entire argument rests on thin air, namely the complete flaming :daisy: that is asserting that famine brought on by war is to be blamed on the attacked and not the attacker. Best argument ever: the Nazis occupying the breadbasket of the Soviet Union means it's Stalin's fault Russians starved! :idea2: I guess the same is true for the Javanese famine, which caused the deaths of over 4,000,000 people during the Japanese occupation! Wow, I could have never imagined. When not even remotely in control of a place, you can still be blamed for what happens there! This is an amazing innovation in logic!

Switching cause and effect is the only thing enabling you to posit the preposterous mound of steaming :daisy: that is your argument.

As for claiming the shooting of surrendered Japanese soldiers puts the Rape of Nanjing "to shame"... holy crap. Again, no comment. Just no comment. I don't even have to deal with this, it's that ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Are you serious? You throw up a chart that includes those who died in the Gulags and under Nationalist Chinese repression and try and pass it off as some sort of representation of the proportionality of those killed by the Axis countries and then question me about numbers? :dizzy2:

---

Then give me some different numbers to talk about. You say those are incorrect. Let's hear the correct ones and we'll go from there.

Quote:

---

In any event, those that died of disease and famine in unoccupied zones alone ranges into the tens of millions. So yes, removing those from the equation, not to mention the litany of other non-axis deaths in your chart that I touched on, would have a dramatic effect on the outcome.

---

Like Wizard said, you're reversing cause and effect. Occupation of Ukraine from which most of the USSR food came was a major factor in the famines. That makes Nazis indirectly responsible for their deaths, at least most of them. Here's a treat for you - let's forget about them. Let's forget about all Chinese and Russian civilian casualties. If all the rest Allied civilian casualties are smaller than German and Japanese ones, I'll concede that Allies were just as bad as the Axis.

Quote:

---

You and Brenus seem to know more about my intentions than I do. Can you please explain what my agenda is, and how I've been "spamming" it? Furthermore, can you please cite any inaccurate information I've provided in this or any other thread?

---

Well, let's see. You provided that some German POWs were killed under Patton. Ok, I believe that's correct. You said what American marines did to the Japanese puts what happened in Nanjing to shame - that I have serious trouble believing, especially unless it backed up by hard facts, meaning time, place and numbers. So far you're several hundreds thousands people killed and tens of thousands of women raped short.

Quote:

---

Seems to me, hearing about Allied war crimes makes some people uncomfortable. Don't shoot the messenger. As I said before, I started this thread because people asked me about the topic. I presented the information in as objective a way as possible. I only jumped back into the thread when the statement "all in all America's fighting men performed far more humanely than the japanese" was made. It was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

---

So, you're saying American soldiers didn't perform more humanely than the Japanese? They behaved the same? There is no difference between them? Is that what you're saying or we have a bad connection?

Quote:

---

You got it right the first time when you said:

---

Yeah, based on our earlier discussions, I didn't expect this from you. From a person conducting a scholarly discussion you've come real close to being a Nazi apologist.

Quote:

---

Like hundreds of thousands of other Americans, Marcus M. Spiegel volunteered in 1861 to fight in the Civil War. Born into a Jewish family in Germany in 1829, Spiegel took part in the failed German revolution of 1848. In the following year he emigrated to Ohio, where he married the daughter of a local farmer. When the Civil War broke out, the nation's 150,000 Jews represented less than 1 percent of the total population. But Spiegel shared wholeheartedly in American patriotism. He went to war, he wrote to his brother-in-law, to defend "the flag that was ever ready to protect you and me and every one who has sought its protection from oppression."

Spiegel rose to the rank of colonel in the 120th Ohio Infantry and saw action in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana. He corresponded frequently with his wife, Caroline. "I have seen and learned much," he wrote in 1863. "I have seen men dying of disease and mangled by the weapons of the death; I have witnessed hostile armies arrayed against each other, the charge of infantry, [and] cavalry hunting men down like beasts." But he never wavered in his commitment to the "glorious cause" of preserving the Union and its heritage of freedom.

What one Pennsylvania recruit called "the magic word Freedom" shaped how many Union soldiers understood the conflict. The war's purpose, wrote Samuel McIlvane, a sergeant from Indiana, was to preserve the American nation as "the beacon light of liberty and freedom to the human race." But as the war progressed, prewar understandings of liberty gave way to something new. Millions of northerners who had not been abolitionists became convinced that preserving the Union as an embodiment of liberty required the destruction of slavery.

Marcus Spiegel's changing views mirrored the transformation of a struggle to save the Union into a war to end slavery. Spiegel was an ardent Democrat. He shared the era's racist attitudes and thought Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation a serious mistake. Yet as the Union army penetrated the heart of the Deep South, Spiegel became increasingly opposed to slavery. "Since I am here," he wrote to his wife from Louisiana in January 1864, "I have learned and seen . . . the horrors of slavery. You know it takes me long to say anything that sounds antidemocratic [opposed to Democratic Party policies], but . . . never hereafter will I either speak or vote in favor of slavery."

Marcus Spiegel was killed in a minor engagement in Louisiana in May 1864, one of 620,000 Americans to perish in the Civil War.

(Taken from Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History, Volume I (New York 2009), p. 480-482)

---

We are talking about the south not the north. The north was constantly drafting and conscripted soldiers, most southern men signed up right off the bat except for the rich. The men who fought the war for the south were poor Scots-Irish from the Appalachian mountains for the most part.