The Coup (of thinking I could stay away from this game for even three days)

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy
There is an English version of the web exhibit.

Just been noticing it while you were posting this. Means: I haven't been fast enough.

If I'm not mistaken, the exhibit came down once and is now back up. Thanks for the info on the web link!

Exactly. You can read that online too I think.

[Yogi Yohan]

Ended up being a LOONG post, bear with me.

Before judging generals like Guderian or Rommel, who actively, even enthusiasticly supported Hitler, one has to remember the Germany they came from; a country brought to ruin by the shamefull treaty of Versailles.

Of course they would gladly back the man that, in their eyes, put an end to the humiliation of the "Vaterland". I belive most German officers, indeed most Germans of the time would have had no problem with most of Hitler's foregin policy, perhaps with the exception of the annexation of Czecoslovakia (the Generals were on the brink of insurrection there). Most officers (like Guderian or Rommel) felt that only a strong Germany could revoke the Versailles peace, and if they had to fight to do it, then so be it.

In the war against Poland, the Germans believed themselves to be absolutely in the right. After all, they had only demanded the return of Danzig (a purely German city at the time) and PARTS of the areas ceded in the Versailles treaty to Poland. Read for example Manstein's thoughts on the subject in "Lost Victories". They could not know that Hitler had gone to great lenghts to insure that no peaceful settlement would occur (se Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Recih") and they must have seen the war as a result of Polish intransigence, cheered on by France and Britain, Germany's traditional enemies.

When France and Britain then declared war, it became a matter of survival for Germany to keep fighting, so its hardly surprising the Generals gladly went wherever the Führer sent them.

Its a measure of the desperation all German patriots must have felt in the 20s and early 30s that the army - an instituion traditionally dominated by aristocratic Prussian landowners - would ally themselves to a National Socialist party that preached a social revolution and the abolition of classes. It seems to indicate no price was to high to regain German dignity. Almost anyone that would have promised massive rearmament and the revocation of Versailles could have gotten the support of the Army. As for Nazi racism, at the time most European countries were poisoned by anti-semitc hatred and the Nazi party seemed to be saying what most people thought - the German officers might be forgiven if they mistook that racism for populism, a way to win votes, especially since a great many of them must have shared the racist views of the Nazi's.

Indeed, the rise of Hitler and the entire horror of the second World War could probably have been avoided had American President Wilson's peace proposal been accepted after world war one - basicly a return to status quo. Instead, France's desire for revenge for her 1871 defeat by the humiliation of her old enemy carried the day. Germany, that had at least initially only honoured her alliance treaty obligations was forced to assume full responsability for the war and to pay crushing reparations. This quite naturally caused German resentment and a lust for revache - enter the Nazi's.

Ah, in case someone is not familiar with the sequence of events leading to WWI it was the following:

-Serbian Nationalist terrorist shoots heir to Austrian Throne
-Austria accuses Serbia of orchestrating the assasination and issues ultimatum
-Serbia refuses ultimatum
-Austria declares war on Serbia
-Russia, honouring her alliance with Serbia declares war on Austria
-Germany, honouring her alliance with Austria declares war on Russia
-France, hounouring her alliance with Russia declares war on Germany
-In order to outflank the French defenses, Germany declares war on neutral Belgium
-Finally honouring her alliance with France and in response to the violation of Belgian neutrality, Britain declares war on Germany.

Somewhere along the way, Turkey joined Germany and Austria, while Italy went from German ally to neutral and finally joined the Allies in 1915.

So as you can see, Germany could reasonably be blamed for the unprovoked attack on Belgium, but hardly for the whole war.

[Von Cone-on]

Hi to all
Well lively debate indeed first of all to Ed & Mark I did not mean to cause insult i was simply responding to what I thought was a fairly simplistic approach of dropping all the bad guys into the the same bag, to a complex issue. Perhaps I have a much broader idea of what a crime against humanity is. Does it really matter to the person getting killed or to thier family losing a loved one wether the killing was organized or, not dead is dead!. The deaths from bombings were as much a part of policy as the camps were & the forced starvation of the ukrainians by Stalin in the 30's, the intention was the same to kill people. As for the comments about aboriginals ( not Abo's which is a derogatory label ) well we have an unhappy past granted & probably a way to go but I can say that I was there for the reconciliation march along with 500,000 of my fellow "white" Australians. It is unfortunate that indigenous peoples here have had the same rough deal as indigenous people in your country & many others.

Now back to the generals. You're absolutely right that french intransigence & german humiliation had a lot to do with germany's road to ww2. Why else would hitler have taken such care to recieve france's surrender in the same railway car as the treaty of versailles had been signed. As for declaration of war's & who started it all well until the first world war made such declaration's horrendously expensive it was a pretty popular pastime for all the european powers. The plight of the jewish people, again I agree that unfortunately they were traditionally disliked & used as scapegoats by a lot of people. Indeed it was a russian intelligence officer who was so virilently anti-semitic that in 1923 he faked a whole series of documents supposedly detailing the plot of international jewry to take over the world, which gave hitler more fuel for his vile rhetoric. I guess that deep down we're not nearly as civilized as we like to think clearly matters of race & religion are as still the powderkeg for war & suffering that they ever were.
Cheers Von Cone-on

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Von Cone-on
Hi to all
Well lively debate indeed first of all to Ed & Mark I did not mean to cause insult i was simply responding to what I thought was a fairly simplistic approach of dropping all the bad guys into the the same bag, to a complex issue. Perhaps I have a much broader idea of what a crime against humanity is. Does it really matter to the person getting killed or to thier family losing a loved one wether the killing was organized or, not dead is dead!.Cheers Von Cone-on

Sorry, I don't buy these sophmorisms for a second. If you can't distinguish between the Holocaust and the allied bombings, then someone's moral compass is off. I suppose the next time the Japanese come sailing towards Australia we'll have them to tea and have head-chopping parties together (an actual activity for them in China). But I guess putting an end to that would be a crime against humanity. I'm sure my uncle who died a miserable death helping the Aussies (32nd Infantry Div.) was a war criminal too.

I'd be interested to know how many "bad guys" there have to be before something's wrong. I guess having "just" 2,000 convicted war criminals in the army is a pretty good score, eh?

I think I'll just go back to my PBEM game and watch my T-34s go up in smoke.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


Sorry, I don't buy these sophmorisms for a second. If you can't distinguish between the Holocaust and the allied bombings, then someone's moral compass is off.

Mark

Someones moral compass has a 'we are the goodguys' loadstone planted nearby that causes skewed readings.

Feb. 13-14, 1945. Dresden, Germany.

"During three waves of attacks, over 1,300 British and U.S. bombers dropped more than 3,300 tons of bombs on Dresden.
Many of the bombs were incendiaries.

The incendiaries dropped on the old city center started a firestorm--a huge blaze that sucked the oxygen from the air.
Temperatures soared as high as 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. This had not been seen before in Europe, although U.S. bombing
started a firestorm in Tokyo and the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki also set off firestorms.

Low-flying planes machine-gunned the fleeing population along the banks of the Elbe river. A fourth attack on Dresden
concentrated its bomb load on the roads used by the fleeing population.

The cultural center of the city was totally destroyed. Meanwhile, the only possible military or economic targets--the barracks in
the city's north and the train station where trains carrying reserves for the Eastern Front might depart--were left untouched."

Yes the abominable Nazi command ordered the deaths of millions of civilians.
There are no less bad intentions in the planning and execution of the Dresden Raid. The city had no military value, the only targets were civilians. This was understood and ignored.
There is NO difference between Aushwitz and Dresden, the targets were civilian, the plans were made, then they were carried out. Innocents died.

Please explain to me the moral superiority 'post fact' of the allies regarding this raid. There can be none. Planning and doing results in the deaths of millions on one hand and tens of thousands on the other. There is not moral difference due to numbers, how can there be.
Thus both sides set out to obliterate innocent civilians for no other reason than that they could.

------------------------
Explain to the 8 year old(and to me), just before he dies, why the dresden raid was moraly justified. If you cannot then the raid must be classed as an atroctiy.
------------------------

Loki

PS. And none of this 'they bombed London rubbish'
Moral superiority stands only when such things as 'an eye for an eye' are ignored.
Or the unspoken excuse 'we got carried away by victory'. The Allies were children?

(is'nt it a **** when people bring up Dresden
and My Lai and such Really puts the dampers on the old good guys spiel.)

[Muzrub]

Muzrub, do you have a citation for this info?

"In the British occupation zone lengthy investigations were made of 700,000 German officers and soldiers. At the end they found 937 prisoners who were suspected of having comitted war crimes. The British military courts sentenced them as follows:

Death: 230
Life: 24
Prison (suspended):
423
In total:677
Acquited: 260

Thats fewer than one in ten thousand soldiers......."

"In the American zone of occupation, following Brigadier-General Telfords Taylors final report only 570 German military personal were affected by "Law No.10 (crimes against humanity). Only 177 were brought before the American special court with the following results:"

Death: 24
Life: 118
Total: 142
Aquitted: 35

"Several thousand persons were arrested in the French occupation zone. The following sentences were inssued on the spot!:

Death: 104 (carried out)
Life: 44
Prison (suspended):
1475
Total: 1623
Acquitted: 404

Of four million prisoners of the Soviets only 30% returned by 1955 and its believed 185,000 executions took place within the Soviet occupation zones.

Pages 444 + 445 "My commando operations" Otto Skorzeny.

Denazification tribunals sentenced 600,000 to various punishments of whom 130,000 eventually got their jobs back.

600,000 some convictions some of which would be minor I dare say out of 3,300,000 is not a bad number- for a people who were under National Socialism for many years.

[varjager]

This subject has really got you fired up boys!
Havent seen so many post by the old boys in months.
Good to see that you all are lurking around here still.


If some were sentenced out of victor's justice what does that tell us about history? Maybe for all countrys to come clean they should open up all the war crimes in ww2.I am sure that with todays standard Dresden would be considered a crime.Hiroshima,Nagasaki The assult on Berlin,with all teh civilians in the melting pot.For us now almost 60 years later to pass judgement on all that served in the war would be like trying to stop war in the world all toghter.There will always be different ways to look at it.But i belive that there is no on that havent got blood on there hands.The hole Second world war was a bloody affair.We still see the effect today.

Cheers and beer to all.

[Yogi Yohan]

I agree that we must be somewhat generous when passing judgement on the actors of WW2, after all the whole concept of war crimes was not as preeminent back then as it is now.

We should not, however, apply a double standard. Germans were convicted for the raids on Rotterdam and London, indicating that this kind of terror-bombing was considered even back in 1945 as a crime against humanity.

The entire British strategic bombing strategy should therefore fall into the same category, since its stated and official goal was "dehousing", an euphemism for killing the German workers (rather than destroying the factories). The civilian deaths of the British night raids were not collateral damage, they were the intended target. Firestorms were caused on purpose, most succesfully in Hamburg.

The American day raids on the other hand aimed for legitimate military or industrial targets, and if a lot of civilians died there, then that can reasonably be adscribed to collateral damage. You can only do your best.

Dresden, finally, can never be considered anything but a war crime. There was no military justification for it, the goal was political (to show the Russians the power of the allied bomber force). I would not put it on par with the Holocaust, there is after all a difference between mass murder and genocide, but it was definitly a hanging offence.

In a just world, Air Marshall Harris and Curchill would have been swinging in the gallows right next to Goering. And Stalin, Beria, Eherenburg and quite a few other Allied personalities...

But then again, sadly, the Nüremberg trials were not about justice, they were about the victors having their way with the defeated. For being "the good guys", the west are really lousy winners...

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan
The entire British strategic bombing strategy should therefore fall into the same category, since its stated and official goal was "dehousing", an euphemism for killing the German workers (rather than destroying the factories).

....

The American day raids on the other hand aimed for legitimate military or industrial targets

....

Dresden, finally, can never be considered anything but a war crime.

....

We know all this already. Dresden has come up several times on this forum by those who want to change the subject away from the Holocaust. I'm not defending Dresdesn or any other atrocity commited by the Allies. We did some horrible things, and by the way, the Americans may have avoided fire-bombings in Europe, opting instead to go after specific targets during the day, but fire-bombings of civilian populations and city infrastructure is exactly what we did to the Japanese, so I wouldn't bother trying to defend the Yanks in this case. We may have been innocent in the European theater but we were guilty has hell in the Pacific theater.


I come back to my point about comparisons. Nothing the Allies did is at the same level of the Holocaust. All of the fire-bombings in the Pacific and Europe, and while we're at it lets throw in the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of it together doesn't come close to 6 million civilians dead. I find it incredible that people are pointing out these other atrocities and bringing them up in response to German culpability in the Holocaust, implying they are the equal of the Holocaust. That to me sounds like some of you have a spring loose in your moral compass.


Why is it that every time we start talking about the Holocaust and who did or didn't know about it, someone from outside Western Europe, feels the need to remind everyone about the bad things the Allies did? What's the point, none of them can be compare to the Holocaust, and virtually everyone here aready knows about those other atrocities. Good grief people, in my time here Dresden has been brought up at least 3 to 6 times, and God only knows how many times its been brought up in the ArtWar forum. Enough already. We've admitted, over and over again, that the Allies did bad, ugly things, but *none* of them compares to the Holocaust, so discussions about culpability among high ranking Germns for that mega-atrocity is a valid debate to have.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

I come back to my point about comparisons. Nothing the Allies did is at the same level of the Holocaust. All of the fire-bombings in the Pacific and Europe, and while we're at it lets throw in the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of it together doesn't come close to 6 million civilians dead. I find it incredible that people are pointing out these other atrocities and bringing them up in response to German culpability in the Holocaust, implying they are the equal of the Holocaust. That to me sounds like some of you have a spring loose in your moral compass.


Why is it that every time we start talking about the Holocaust and who did or didn't know about it, someone from outside Western Europe, feels the need to remind everyone about the bad things the Allies did? What's the point, none of them can be compare to the Holocaust, and virtually everyone here aready knows about those other atrocities. Good grief people, in my time here Dresden has been brought up at least 3 to 6 times, and God only knows how many times its been brought up in the ArtWar forum. Enough already. We've admitted, over and over again, that the Allies did bad, ugly things, but *none* of them compares to the Holocaust, so discussions about culpability among high ranking Germns for that mega-atrocity is a valid debate to have.

Hey, Ed, I did say I do NOT put Dresden on par with the Holocaust. I said that there's a difference between mass murder and genocide. A big one. And last time I looked, Sweden was still in Western Europe...

[Montenegro]

Maybe I'm a hopeless cynic, scalded by the do and dont's of mankind, but I pose this question: don't you fight wars, as tragic as they are, to win and win as expediently as possible? Personally, Dresden was what James Brown would call "the big payback, huh!" The fact that we hit civilian targets means nil---it was a friggin' war. If you want to condemn that act, then take a number. Here's some others for the list: Warsaw, Minsk, London, Smolensk, Stalingrad, all of urban China, and hey, how bout that fun little experimentation in starvation called Lenningrad? If ye start the fire (ie Germany/Nazi's), ye shall potentially burn in the same cauldron. I think the true, 100% bombing war crime we committed---the US---was Nagasaki. It was a pointless, brutal gesture. End of this portion o' rant.


As far as another element of this lengthy WW2 rap sheet, let's get really real here folks. For what seems eons now, some dubious people have been forging these veiled (or not at all) devaluations of the Holocaust in light of the overall bleak picture of WW2. I'm not accusing ANYONE here of this, but it does exist in this world. In deference to the MILLIONS who perished for this twisted game Hitler was playing, let's drop this topic once and for all. It happened, it was sytematic, it was premeditated, it was covered up by ALL nations involved or put in a shade of "I can't believe this could be..." category. Even the Catholic church can take some blame here too, but they have plenty of their present day PR issues now.

Regards,

Montenegro

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Montenegro
Maybe I'm a hopeless cynic, scalded by the do and dont's of mankind, but I pose this question: don't you fight wars, as tragic as they are, to win and win as expediently as possible? Personally, Dresden was what James Brown would call "the big payback, huh!" The fact that we hit civilian targets means nil---it was a friggin' war. If you want to condemn that act, then take a number. Here's some others for the list: Warsaw, Minsk, London, Smolensk, Stalingrad, all of urban China, and hey, how bout that fun little experimentation in starvation called Lenningrad? If ye start the fire (ie Germany/Nazi's), ye shall potentially burn in the same cauldron. I think the true, 100% bombing war crime we committed---the US---was Nagasaki. It was a pointless, brutal gesture. End of this portion o' rant.

Very cinical, indeed.

When you compare the western allies to Nazi Germany - and you're doing this in that post, not me! - are you saying they're generally on the same level when it comes to war???

If there's no difference between the good and the bad guys, well, then why fighting? Only for dominance? If so, then finish the job! There are still potential (and real) rivals left...

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by davewolf

Very cinical, indeed.

When you compare the western allies to Nazi Germany - and you're doing this in that post, not me! - are you saying they're generally on the same level when it comes to war???

If there's no difference between the good and the bad guys, well, then why fighting? Only for dominance? If so, then finish the job! There are still potential (and real) rivals left...

Dave,

I am NOT talking about comparisons here. It was a bloody, awful war that EVERYONE had some bad in. It was a war, and yes, Dresden, et al were awful. My point is sort of the one that Gen Sherman took in the American Civil War (and I know my kneck is sticking out now): no one is exempt from the strife of war. You fight it to eliminate the will and strength of the opponent. I do believe there is good v. bad in WW2. I also believe I'm right in saying the Allied powers were taking this Sherman principle to end the bloody thing! I apologize if I have offended you. That was not my intent. Personally speaking, I am both Slavic and Nordic in heritage, so I get heated on all sides o' the coin about WW 2. In closing, war bad. Discourse, good.

Montenegro

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Montenegro
I am NOT talking about comparisons here. It was a bloody, awful war that EVERYONE had some bad in. It was a war, and yes, Dresden, et al were awful. My point is sort of the one that Gen Sherman took in the American Civil War (and I know my kneck is sticking out now): no one is exempt from the strife of war. You fight it to eliminate the will and strength of the opponent. I do believe there is good v. bad in WW2. I also believe I'm right in saying the Allied powers were taking this Sherman principle to end the bloody thing! I apologize if I have offended you. That was not my intent. Personally speaking, I am both Slavic and Nordic in heritage, so I get heated on all sides o' the coin about WW 2. In closing, war bad. Discourse, good.

Montenegro,
BTW I'm half german, half slovenian. (Well, grown up at Germany, so this influence is more intensive.)
I'm not offended. The point was about the comparison at least I thought I see in your post. If I misunderstood your words, then sorry.

Dave

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by davewolf

Montenegro,
BTW I'm half german, half slovenian. (Well, grown up at Germany, so this influence is more intensive.)
I'm not offended. The point was about the comparison at least I thought I see in your post. If I misunderstood your words, then sorry.

Dave

Davewolf,

Das tut mir leid. My German is sehr rustig, so I hope you get the kind regard.

Montenegro

[Lokioftheaesir]

Well the pot got stired.

Ed, you probably think i will now defend the
mentioning of Dresden... Thats what was planned when i wrote the previous post.

I stand by the statement
"There is NO difference between Auschwitz and Dresden"
I did not say "There is NO difference between
The Holocaust and Allied bombing of civilians"

The Holocaust was a State ordered and sanctioned genocide.
The Dresden raid was carried out by a portion of the Allied forces Europe and was not state policy
as such.
The aftermath of Auschwitz and Dresden is the same. Dead women and children. In that respect there 'is' no difference.

The reason that Dresen was mentioned is that i and my Nation are part of the 'Allies' (the West) and as such are supposed to value the lives of all human beings. Such atrocities do great harm
to the 'Moral Fibre' of nations that proclaim to stand by the rights of the individual and protect the innocent.
As the 'Good guys' we must be reminded from time to time that we have made big mistakes in the past
so that we do not repeat them.

I was not trying to "change he subject away from the Holocaust"
Why would i want to do that? Are you implying that i dont believe in it or wish to trivialise it?
(or that i'm anti-semetic)
Wrong on all counts. I will specifically mention 'the' Holocaust (The murder of 6 millions of innocent human beings) as a reminder to us all that 'a' Holocaust starts with a single person.

Nick

PS.
Montenegro points out that "no one is exempt from the strife of war. You fight it to eliminate the will and strength of the opponent."
and he is quite right. But i do not count the immolation of children as a justifiable method of
lowering the 'will and strength' of an enemy.
(and in the case of germany in '45, one that was already gutted)

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Montenegro
Das tut mir leid. My German is sehr rustig, so I hope you get the kind regard.

Absolutely. Best regards sent back.

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Muzrub



"In the British occupation zone lengthy investigations were made of 700,000 German officers and soldiers. At the end they found 937 prisoners who were suspected of having comitted war crimes. The British military courts sentenced them as follows:

Death: 230
Life: 24
Prison (suspended):
423
In total:677
Acquited: 260

Thats fewer than one in ten thousand soldiers......."

"In the American zone of occupation, following Brigadier-General Telfords Taylors final report only 570 German military personal were affected by "Law No.10 (crimes against humanity). Only 177 were brought before the American special court with the following results:"

Death: 24
Life: 118
Total: 142
Aquitted: 35

"Several thousand persons were arrested in the French occupation zone. The following sentences were inssued on the spot!:

Death: 104 (carried out)
Life: 44
Prison (suspended):
1475
Total: 1623
Acquitted: 404

Of four million prisoners of the Soviets only 30% returned by 1955 and its believed 185,000 executions took place within the Soviet occupation zones.

Pages 444 + 445 "My commando operations" Otto Skorzeny.



600,000 some convictions some of which would be minor I dare say out of 3,300,000 is not a bad number- for a people who were under National Socialism for many years.

Muzrub, I suspect Otto didn't get his numbers right. (Didn't he get tried? I can't recall for sure.) I'll take a guess and say the National Archives report to Congress is way closer to the accurate figure. I'll do some more checking and see what I can dig up.

If you've never had the chance be sure to read Telford Taylor's Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (Boston: Back Bay Books, 1992). Taylor was the first assistant US prosecutor and later the top US prosecutor at the trials. He has many fascinating comments about his colleagues, including Robert Jackson, the German leaders, crimes, and the trials. His views about Vietnam and criminality are quite the read. I remember spending my time at a professional conference unable to put the book down.

Unfortunately, only major academic libraries have the print set. (I was the first person in 40 years to check out some of the volumes at one of the library's I used to work at -- what a nerd, eh?) Some of the original Nuremberg transcripts are now available on the web -- Yale Law School's Avalon Project has some of the most important documents online -- but no one as far as I know has gotten into the subsequent trials. I seem to recall that one of the volumes deals with Manstein's trial, but I might be off the mark here.

FYI, the National Archives has just declassified a remarkable set of WWII era records. Here's a quote from the 8 May 2002 press release (I wonder if anyone noticed it was VE Day anniversary). The info on Gehlen is probably worth a research trip.:

The Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG) announces the opening and public availability of Central Intelligence Agency files on 381 individuals and subjects associated with Nazi war crimes or war criminals. The CIA recently declassified these files under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act (PL 105-246). They are available for researchers at the National Archives' College Park, Maryland facility, at 8601 Adelphi Road.

Under the auspices of the IWG, the CIA has reviewed and declassified "Name Files" of many Nazi figures and related subjects, including the files on Walter Schellenberg (Head of the Reich Security Main Office Foreign Intelligence Service) and Otto Skorzeny (Hitler's favorite commando, having snatched Mussolini from captivity). The files also provide new insight into such individuals as Walther Rauff, Krunoslav Dragonovic, and Reinhard Gehlen. (Highlighted below.) The IWG website (www.nara.gov/iwg) provides a full list of the names and subjects, including the 20 CIA Name Files released in April 2001.

FYI, if you've never had the chance to use either the "old" NARA facility in downtown DC or the new facilty in College Park, they are just wonderful places to do research. The staff is paranoid, but very helpful!:)

Ciao for now.

[Muzrub]

Muzrub, I suspect Otto didn't get his numbers right. (Didn't he get tried? I can't recall for sure.) I'll take a guess and say the National Archives report to Congress is way closer to the accurate figure. I'll do some more checking and see what I can dig up.

I believe Otto's numbers are based on military personal who were either aquitted, convicted and or executed. Btw Otto was aquitted on the charges brought against him. Though he was kept under arrest for a period after from which he then made his escape ( he was confined due to his membership of the SS and his special abilities and ties).

The numbers published by Otto were first published by Professor J.A. Martininez: The War Crimes Trials of the Postwar Period, Paris 1958


BTW Have you read Reinhard Gehlen's "The service"? Interesting little book indeed.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan


Hey, Ed, I did say I do NOT put Dresden on par with the Holocaust.

This problem here isn't what is said, its what is implied by what you said, and I'm not necessarily saying that you did it on purpose, but by definition, when someone starts talking about the mega-atrocity, and someone else brings up another atrocity in contrast, there is an implicit comparison made there in the minds of most readers.

I said that there's a difference between mass murder and genocide.

Yes. Agreed.

A big one. And last time I looked, Sweden was still in Western Europe...

For real? They're in the West? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. By Western Europe I was really referring to the Western Allies of WWII (Britian, France, US). That's what I should have said, my mistake.