Patton and War Crimes

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

German soldiers, for example, were compelled to commit atrocities through a carrot and stick approach by the top Nazi leadership. First, they were force-fed a daily diet of propaganda that dehumanized the Eastern peoples and justified German manifest destiny. Hitler himself used all his charismatic might to fill them with feelings of racial superiority and talk of "subhumans" and "vermin". They were given every excuse in the book from their leaders to justify their actions from the fight against bolshevism to the need for German living space. When encouragement wasn't enough, they used punishment. Those German soldiers who refused orders could expect a wide range of reprisals. They could only hope to be sent to a harsh front, and not wind up in a concentration camp themselves. Still, the Nazi leadership felt the need to continually sanatize their genocide. IIRC, by the time Treblinka was set up, no more than 50 or 100 Germans ever worked there at one time.

That's quite the contrary position to develop - that the Germans wouldn't have committed atrocities without being poked by their commanding officers. The Germans basically agreed with the Nazis and weren't troubled at all by the "purge the Jews" business - which was no Nazi secret. And how many German soldiers were actually punished for refusing to participate in the race war on the Eastern Front? It's a pretty small figure, and the book discussed here a few months ago found just one corporal, who was executed for hiding Jews (and having more courage than the entire Wehrmacht put together).

[PanzerJaeger]

That's quite the contrary position to develop - that the Germans wouldn't have committed atrocities without being poked by their commanding officers.

My position - as I clearly stated - was that the Germans received both encouragement from their political leaders to commit war crimes and feared reprisals for not doing so, and that the Americans were not under such constraints, but still engaged in atrocities. I was discussing context, not guessing about hypotheticals. It is obviously impossible to know the extent to which the Germans would have engaged in such behaviors without inducements from their leaders.

Clearly the Germans are better than us....perhaps some type of supermen?

Certainly not. While FDR's governing intentions were far from altruistic, they were many levels above those of Hitler and the Nazis in a moral context. America in general was far better than Nazi Germany in that regard, which should be obvious. I'm discussing specifics and you're trying to turn this into a question of who was better - Germany or the US. The answer to that is not in dispute.

So why in your opinion are Americans so ready to commit ethnocide?

Some researchers have hypothesized that cultures in which hunting is extremely prevalent are more likely to dehumanize their enemies - making them little more than animals to be hunted. As a hunter myself, I have my doubts about that, but I really have no idea. War brings out both the best and the worst in people.

The war is a soft spot for you as the best you can do is cherry pick examples of trinkites taken by American soliders with the rape of nanking and auschwitz

I don't think killing people to take their teeth is exactly equivalent to a trip to the souvenir shop. If you're going to accuse me of bias, minimizing what the Americans did only weakens your position.

You're fair and balanced veiw is bordering on relativism and trying to reconcile the NAZIs...the schtick is growing old

What is growing old is people reading what they want to into my statements instead of what I actually write.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

My position - as I clearly stated - was that the Germans received both encouragement from their political leaders to commit war crimes and feared reprisals for not doing so, and that the Americans were not under such constraints, but still engaged in atrocities. I was discussing context, not guessing about hypotheticals. It is obviously impossible to know the extent to which the Germans would have engaged in such behaviors without inducements from their leaders.

But that's basically what you're implying by bringing it up - that the US troops committed these crimes voluntarily (which is true) in contrast to the Germans who were forced to (which is false).

Additionally, you haven't really shown the scale of the atrocities the US troops committed. You've shown that the Americans killed a lot of surrendering Japanese POWs (I don't think you've given an estimate though) and you've alluded to some rapes. But we can't say for instance whether a majority of US units stationed in the Pacific committed war crimes or not because you haven't really said anything except "the research is there." Give us some links with the parts you think are important quoted for us.

[PanzerJaeger]

My apologies for overlooking this thread.

But that's basically what you're implying by bringing it up - that the US troops committed these crimes voluntarily (which is true) in contrast to the Germans who were forced to (which is false).

I was not implying anything; I was stating facts in order to give the discussion a different dimension. So far, the entirety of the debate has revolved around body counts. Is it not also valid to look at the context in which the atrocities were committed in judging the morality of the soldiers involved? The Japanese and Germans were under very different conditions than the Americans. So, for example, while it is justified to note that the American soldiers did not participate in the kind of government orchestrated genocide that some German soldiers did, it is also justified to note that some American soldiers took it upon themselves to engage in widespread atrocities without any prompting from their government. The point being, moral superiority between the soldiers is illusory.

Additionally, you haven't really shown the scale of the atrocities the US troops committed. You've shown that the Americans killed a lot of surrendering Japanese POWs (I don't think you've given an estimate though) and you've alluded to some rapes. But we can't say for instance whether a majority of US units stationed in the Pacific committed war crimes or not because you haven't really said anything except "the research is there." Give us some links with the parts you think are important quoted for us.

I have posted as much information as I could find from Wikipedia and referred readers to hard copy sources including the US government's own research on the subject and several postwar historians. In the realm of an internet discussion board, I'm not sure what else I can do.

I am not going to repost the entirety of the wikis (they are on page three) but I think these get to the heart of the issue:

U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two key factors: a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were 'animals' or 'subhuman' and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs."[11] The latter reasoning is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[12] According to Weingartner, many U.S. troops regarded fighting the Japanese as more like hunting inhuman animals than a war.[11]

The U.S. conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals, together with Japanese reluctance to attempt to surrender to allied forces, contributed to the fact that a mere 604 Japanese captives were alive in Allied POW camps by October 1944.

American soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered. According to Richard Aldrich, who has published a study of the diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, they sometimes massacred prisoners of war.[39] Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[32] According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[40] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[41] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[42]

Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes,[42] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering) and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead, resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, taking no prisoners was still standard practice among U. S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.

You post implies the Germans showed restriant while being encouraged while the Americans were licking there chops while being restrained

My post only implied that German soldiers and American soldiers were in very different situations, which should be kept in perspective during the discussion. My overarching point throughout this discussion has been that Allied soldiers were not particularly morally superior to those of the Axis. I don't think the German soldiers of the time were any better than their American counterparts, besides, of course, in combat.

And that's why they occurred far less often and far, far less systematically than in the German or Japanese militaries. As you yourself point out.

Less systematically, but less often? Not in the Pacific. And that is at the heart of my point. Axis war crimes were perpetrated within a system that both ordered them and punished those who refused the orders. Allied war crimes emanated from the feelings and beliefs of the soldiers themselves with little encouragement from their leaders. How does that make them particularly morally superior?

Indeed, I agree. Rather, intent is. And the American intent was clearly to limit war crimes as much as possible. German and Japanese intent was to maximize them to the fullest. Need I say more?

You're talking about governments, I'm talking about soldiers. And I would hardly describe the American intent as "clearly to limit war crimes as much as possible". In actuality, throughout much of the war the American military took a laissez-faire approach to war crimes committed in the Pacific, until it was realized that refusing to take prisoners and killing those that were taken damaged intelligence gathering. Morality had nothing to do with their attitude toward the Japanese.

Dude... you're the one claiming the Americans/Allies were just as bad as the Axis. You're the one claiming what Marines did to surrendering Japanese soldiers was just as bad as the Rape of Nanjing. In other words, you're the one trying to generalize. Now you're complaining when we argue on that premise? Come again?

I don't understand how my response about possible motivations for committing atrocities can be construed as a complaint.

...good post...

Interesting observations. It is important to note that Hitler was most likely influenced by, and certainly justified his expansionist policies on, European colonialism and particularly the American extermination of the natives. Lebensraum was very much a 20th century update to American Manifest Destiny.

Doesn't make him any less guilty, but it is worth noting.

[Strike For The South]

Certainly not. While FDR's governing intentions were far from altruistic, they were many levels above those of Hitler and the Nazis in a moral context. America in general was far better than Nazi Germany in that regard, which should be obvious. I'm discussing specifics and you're trying to turn this into a question of who was better - Germany or the US. The answer to that is not in dispute.
.

You post implies the Germans showed restriant while being encouraged while the Americans were licking there chops while being restrained

Unless you can point to some factor in American society that is vastly different from German society I have a hard time beliving you.

I'm sure Bavarians hunt as much as Texans no?