Totenkopf SS Division

[squatter]

"The Allies targeted cities and it was obvious that, although there was not a specific intent to kill civilians, there would be large civilian casualties. Equally, when attacks were made on targets in France, it was also recognised that there would be civilian casualties, it was unavoidable with the technology of the time.
 
it was not the intent to merely kill people. Misguided, or not, the allies were attempting to achieve their war aims and it can be seen as an act of war."
 
I beg to differ. This was often far from the case. The Allies deliberately targetted civilians in Germany and Japan.  
 
UK Bomber Command realised that with night bombing they could not be accurate enough to hit the industrial targets. So they deliberately bombed the vast residential districts housing the workers to directly target the workforce. US firebombing of Japanese cities largely the same desired result. And interestingly, as with the a-bomb, military leadership argued against, in favour of using resources against direct military targets. So it was not done through pressing military need. The Allied civilian command had committed to a long-term strategic campaign to use what was the ultimate terror weapon of its time - aerial bombardment - to break the will of the people of the nations it was at war with. Russians excepted.  
 
If the Japanese had firebombed Los Angeles residential districts, it would be remembered rather differently I suspect. 
 
 

[Mynok]

Breaking the will of an enemy nation is a war aim.

I laugh when people talk about 'war crimes'. Bah. It's war. If you aren't willing to do whatever it takes to win you shouldn't be in it to start with.

[paullus99]

It is "war crimes" if you lose - tactics if you win.

[squatter]

"It is "war crimes" if you lose - tactics if you win."

Exactly.

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: squatter

"It is "war crimes" if you lose - tactics if you win."

Exactly.

This is, quite simply, not true. I would still emphasize that the death camps are in a different category from the bombing of cities and many other actions. It took a long time for the US to take responsibility for the internment of Japanese-American civilians during WWII, but eventually it did. I just point this out because I think the "everyone is to blame" philosophy tends to minimize the tremendous scope of the Nazi war crimes.

[mariandavid]

The number of women who 'died' after the Russian occupation of what was East Germany is highly politised. Any figure needs to be questioned because there were no statistics made at the time and much of the data was determined from 'witness' statements taken long after the event. I was in Germany in the 50's (my father was an officer in the British occupation forces) and was told that with the 'rejuvanation of Germany' (to fight communism) that all sorts of data was being 'brought together' to justify the changes coming into effect. Such as the new army, the recruitment of officers and men (including those from the Waffen SS, but carefully sanitised!) etc etc. The one fact that is clearly documented is that the rapes/murders/robberies were NOT carried out by the Russian fighting troops - the dates and reports make it clear that support troops, including the NKVD 'combat' units were very largely responsible. How anyone could calculate the number of suicides baffles me, since the statistics in this regard were retained by the pro-communist East German government.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: squatter
UK Bomber Command realised that with night bombing they could not be accurate enough to hit the industrial targets. So they deliberately bombed the vast residential districts housing the workers to directly target the workforce. US firebombing of Japanese cities largely the same desired result. And interestingly, as with the a-bomb, military leadership argued against, in favour of using resources against direct military targets. So it was not done through pressing military need. The Allied civilian command had committed to a long-term strategic campaign to use what was the ultimate terror weapon of its time - aerial bombardment - to break the will of the people of the nations it was at war with. Russians excepted.  

If the Japanese had firebombed Los Angeles residential districts, it would be remembered rather differently I suspect.

We can argue round these points forever, I am fully aware of what area bombing means, as were the people at the time. I am aware of how area bombing developed into the primary tactic. I have explained that the acceptance of civilian casualties, even to our own allies, was a known and accepted part of the technology of the time.

In the 2194 days of WW2, 1939-45, an estimated 50,000,000 people died, do the maths, that's an average of 22,789 people (mums, dads, kids, - human beings) every single day the war continued (I know that some of these were bombing casualties, but we are looking at the bigger picture of a Total War).

The Allies prime objective was to end the War by any means possible. If the Axis powers had surrendered, the bombing would have ended instantly, as the bombing campaign was motivated by the Allied war aim to end the fighting (killing civilians was not the primary objective, destroying the enemies' will and ability to fight was.).

If the Allies had surrendered would the killing have stopped. No, because it wasn't motivated by Axis war aims, it was something much, much, more sinister.

Today's conflicts are of a totally different order, in a totally different context, and bear not relation to WW2.

If the Japanese had possessed the power to fire bomb the residential districts of Los Angeles, they would have done it and their population would have cheered the success. This is Nations at war, extermination policies, genocide, not the current 'proportional response', 24hr TV ratings, 'conflict'.

I am surprised that you don't think that ending the war quickly in 1945 was not a pressing military need, what about the pressing humanitarian need to end the war. Europe was staving in 1945, even the Germans recognised that and allowed Allied aircraft to airdrop food supplies to Holland, before the war ended (the best use of a Lancaster bomber I can think of).

Are you able to imagine what would have happened if after selectively bombing military targets with nuclear weapons, if the Japanese had not surrendered. Remember, the project had only delivered two bombs and they were still effectively experimental (there was not a stock for a bombing campaign, a one shot weapon). So then what, invasion ? see Okinawa hugely magnified, enormous casualties, mass suicides and behind it all, with, or without, invasion of the Japanese mainland, the collapse of the economy and starvation on an enormous scale.

The other factor is the Russians, pushing West with hundreds of divisions, with a proven record of taking over other people's countries, against which the pitiful Allied ground forces would have been overwhelmed. The only advantage the Allies had was in air power and Stalin needed to know that. It is no accident that Dresden was visible from the Russian frontline in 1945. I suspect the targets for the nuclear weapons had a similar motive.

Was it a price worth paying, we will never know, but the political situation at that time was unbelievably difficult, with very high stakes. I don't think we have the right to play judge from our hard won privileged position.

So for me the issue is one of motive and intent, I am not attempting to paint the Allies as pure and guiltless in what was an unbelievably horrific and protracted situation, however, their motives and intent cannot be compared to those of the Axis powers. I believe that the Allies where attempting to minimise casualties in a situation where a large number of deaths was inevitable, which ever policy they chose.

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

It is "war crimes" if you lose - tactics if you win.

If this were true, why bother with a process? Why bother with existing international laws? Why even acquit some of the defendants?
If 'anything goes' for the victor, why didn't the Allies just line up all the nazis and shoot them, in pure Einsatzgruppe-style?

I think that it's a war crime if... it's a war crime!

1. crime-noun-A specific act committed in violation of the law.
2. Thus a war crime is an act in violation of war laws.
3. War laws were to be found in various conventions and international treaties.

To quote the chief US prosecutor at the Nurenberg trials: "Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man."

[paullus99]

I certainly was not defending anything that was done on the Axis side during WWII - their crimes were especially heinous and beyond the pale of any past conflict, both in scope and depth of depravity.

I only point out that if the Axis had won, most of what did occur would have been swept under the carpet - and people like Winston Churchill and "Bomber" Harris would have been put on trial for "crimes against humanity" just like the Nazi leaders (and to a much lesser extent, Japanese leaders) were after the war.

History is written by the victors, and many of the instances where Allied forces acted in a somewhat similar fashion (though not anywhere close to what the Nazis did - though the Russians definitely had their fair share) were looked at as more of "heat of the moment" or necessary evils - shooting of prisoners, fire-bombing of cities (particularly Dresden). Of course, on our side, we have examined these incidents, and in some cases, held those responsible - but we didn't hang anyone for it (our guys).

B

[squatter]

Only a monster would try to diminish the scale of Nazi war crimes.
 
But only the naive cant conceive that their own side was guilty of crimes, even if of different scale.
 
"If this were true, why bother with a process? Why bother with existing international laws? Why even acquit some of the defendants?
If 'anything goes' for the victor, why didn't the Allies just line up all the nazis and shoot them, in pure Einsatzgruppe-style?

I think that it's a war crime if... it's a war crime!

1. crime-noun-A specific act committed in violation of the law.
2. Thus a war crime is an act in violation of war laws.
3. War laws were to be found in various conventions and international treaties."
 
A couple of points to follow this:
 
1 The post war trials were product of victor's justice, rather than immutable law: What crime was Yamahita guilty of, exactly?  

2 Why bother with international laws? Well, who does these days? Why did the US unilaterally leave the jurisdiction of the international criminal court following condemnation for its actions against Nicaragua in the mid 80s? Out of respect for the rule of international law? International law is, and always has been, something analagous to whatever justifies the actions of the most powerful, and condemns the actions of their opponents.

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I certainly was not defending anything that was done on the Axis side during WWII - their crimes were especially heinous and beyond the pale of any past conflict, both in scope and depth of depravity.

Of course. I didn't imply you were.

I only point out that if the Axis had won, most of what did occur would have been swept under the carpet - and people like Winston Churchill and "Bomber" Harris would have been put on trial for "crimes against humanity" just like the Nazi leaders (and to a much lesser extent, Japanese leaders) were after the war.

Yes, this might be true. But would these post-war executions have been based on actual international law? Judging from what the Nazis actually did whey they thought they were going to win the war, I presume that what would have happened in case of a German victory would have been more similar to the "final solution" than to the Nurenberg trials.

History is written by the victors, and many of the instances where Allied forces acted in a somewhat similar fashion (though not anywhere close to what the Nazis did - though the Russians definitely had their fair share) were looked at as more of "heat of the moment" or necessary evils - shooting of prisoners, fire-bombing of cities (particularly Dresden). Of course, on our side, we have examined these incidents, and in some cases, held those responsible - but we didn't hang anyone for it (our guys).

As I wrote before, according to the international law, the bombing of a defended city was allowed. Therefore there was no legal reason for the Allied powers to prosecute Harris or other USAAF/RAF officers. It may be worth noting also that, consequently, no Luftwaffe member was prosecuted for the same actions by the Allies, so no double-standards.

For what concernes actual war crimes committed dy Allied servicemen (e.g. shooting of PoWs), well, there were instances of prosecutions and convition (for example Sgt. West was court martialled for the cold blood killing of Italian PoWs in Sicily). I'm not saying that the Allies were faultless in respect to the war crimes issue, but for sure, it can be shown that the numbers and the systematicity of the Axis violations were enormously superior. And this even taking Soviet Union into the picture. Yes, there were many of instances of Red Army soldiers killing prisoners and/or looting, but Soviet high command at least tried to stop this behaviour (I can quote the relevant orders, if needed). On the German side, not only nobody tried to stop the violation but these violation were encouraged if not ordered outright. See the infamous Hitler's "Barbarossa" directives implemented by Keitel allowing summary execution for civilian suspects and the non prosecution of German soldiers for crimes committed against civilians and PoWs.

[paullus99]

I can somewhat disagree with Soviet conduct, especially once the Red Army set foot on German soil. Of course, most, if not all, of the front line units were extremely well disciplined (they needed it, given the tenacity of the German defense) but the follow up forces weren't nearly as well-behaved. In most instances, it was felt that given what the Germans did to the Soviet Union, pretty much everything was fair game.

And, of course, see what happened to the Russian collaborators (and even prisoners) that were turned back over to the Red Army by the allies after the war - not exactly the conduct of a civil society.

Nothing can aleviate the horrendous conduct of the Nazis (and to a slightly lesser extent, the Japanese), but WWII was the first major conflict where civilians, on both sides, were targeted and died in overwhelming numbers compared to military losses. 50 million civilian dead is probably too low & I've seen good research that puts that final number closer to 100 million (due to famine, disease, etc that was a direct result of the disruption of international trade).

International law is only what we say it is - and under the circumstances, expediency can get in the way of justice.

[vinnie71]

As far as I know the Russians were not signatory to the Geneva conventions so from a strictly legalistic point of view, whatever happened was also partly their fault too. Red Cross was not allowed in the USSR either as far as I know and therefore it became impossible to monitor anything. Plus the Russians gave as good as they took. They didn't even have mercy on their own compatriots, let alone on foreign invaders. In fact there is a probability that Stalin's regime took a heavier toll of the Russians than the Axis invaders.

As to the war crimes, keep in mind that convention more than law, holds power in military circles. For example for a long time, an occupier had the right to keep (and if necessary shoot) hostages to terrorise the natives. That was accepted and no law/tribunal or what have you will ever change that, even today.

Secondly we must not see everything from today's perspective. If we did so, Nazi atrocities on the Eastern front, the bombing of cities in Germany, the obliteration of Carthage and the pyramids of skulls of Ghengis Khan can be roughly equated. Why? Because these were all state sanctioned acts of terrorism intended to cow an enemy which was portrayed as being barely human. They were nothing more than state sponsored acts of terror designed to break the enemy's resolve. WWII on the Eastern front was war to the knife, no quarter given or taken, since this war was more a clash of civilisations/ideologies/races than a mere limited war for definite objectives. On the Western front, combattants tended to adhere to accepted norms of warfare and the Red Cross acted as a neutral go between the warring powers.

Then there is the question of scale. We are talking about huge armies, millions strong. How do you police such a mass of men? Its clearly almost impossible to do so. Incidentally, as a previous poster has said, it is mostly rear echelons who perform most of these atrocities since the guys up front tend to see and shed enough blood already.

But no comparisons can be made with today. In essence, the bulk of warfare that takes place today are either guerilla warfare, which is by its very nature very messy or extended colonial campaigning. There is no comparison with WWII, with possibly only the Iran-Iraq war matching WWII in intensity and brutality since 1945. All these rules, laws etc mostly came in existence in a period of time when warfare is limited in scale and intensity. The next apocaliptic conflict, which I hope never to see, will see all these rules discarded without a second thought and the Hague tribunal being seen nothing more than a farce...

Besides throughout history there are many examples when civilised warfare reached a peak (with rules and what have you) to be suddenly set aside by new comers. Ex the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the arrival of the Mongols, the rise of the Swiss, the Thirty Years War and the French Revolution were all bloody shocks to the 'ritualised' legal forms of warfare. The same can be seen in other continents as well (the best example would be Shaka here who wrought a revolution in military thinking in his own corner of the African continent).

Personal perspective and time tend to colour our judgements. It is interesting to note that in our day and age, when there are strict laws on warmaking and so forth, the largest powers which have the highest probability to engage in any sort of warfare, tend to shun binding documents/declarations/international tribunals etc. Again, why? Because they write their own lawbook and do not feel bound by what lesser states want. This century, like every century before it, might still makes right...

[Bandkanon]

Wow...they look like hard men...they don't look too nice. Sometimes I wish Osprey would give their subjects a smile every once in a while in their colored plates.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nothing different about their uniforms from other Waffen SS units, aside from the death's head replacing the SS runes:

[amatteucci]

Yes, it's known that the USSR didn't sign the Geneva Convention. And this fact was also used by Germany to justify the appalling conduct of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front with regards to PoW, anti-partisan operations, treatment of the civilian population etc.
Of course this justification isn't a justification since the aforementioned Convention is binding for the signing State even when waging war against a power that didn't sign it (moreover the USSR let Germany know that it was disposed to follow the Convention anyway if the Germans did the same but this proposal fell on deaf ears...).

It's an undeniable historical fact that the USSR committed war crimes, sometimes recurring to some "gamey" rule-lawyering, sometimes because the units at the front acted in spite of the official instruction and sometimes just because, as was said, ending up in NKVD hands just meant that you could become dead meat in a second, regardless of being German, Russian, Pole, Ukrainian etc.

It's also obvious that there's no point in judging historical events out of contest. But, it's also evident (at least I think it is) that we can underline differencies between "players" in a given historical context.
For example, it's obvious that, from a modern point of view, the conduct of all Ancient armies in war was barbaric and bloodthirsty. Yet, I can say that Julius Caesar was more humane that many other Roman generals because, after the civil war, he sponsirized a policy of national pacification and spared the lives of all his former enemies (and, ultimately, paid with his life this clemency).

Likewise one can say that the USA and the UK committed fewer war crimes than Germany and Japan and with no sistematicity. And that Stalin's USSR lies somewhere inbetween these extremes. This doesn't mean that all Axis soldiers were bloodthisrty savages and all Allied soldiers were gentle knights in shining armour. Nor that everyone, utilately, was treated according to what actually deserved. But would be unfair and unrespectful for those soldiers that tried to behave chivalrously (in particular to German soldiers that refused to execute unlawful order) to say that, after all, they were all the same.

[Mynok]

The Nazi camps were not war crimes. They were simply crimes, period.

[Theng]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

The number of women who 'died' after the Russian occupation of what was East Germany is highly politised. Any figure needs to be questioned because there were no statistics made at the time and much of the data was determined from 'witness' statements taken long after the event. I was in Germany in the 50's (my father was an officer in the British occupation forces) and was told that with the 'rejuvanation of Germany' (to fight communism) that all sorts of data was being 'brought together' to justify the changes coming into effect. Such as the new army, the recruitment of officers and men (including those from the Waffen SS, but carefully sanitised!) etc etc. The one fact that is clearly documented is that the rapes/murders/robberies were NOT carried out by the Russian fighting troops - the dates and reports make it clear that support troops, including the NKVD 'combat' units were very largely responsible. How anyone could calculate the number of suicides baffles me, since the statistics in this regard were retained by the pro-communist East German government.

There were reasons why the German forces on the East Front fought a lot harder in 1944 and beyond on the East Front than on the Western Front - and these reasons were clearly the women and children. And to be honest, I don't think the women cared if they got raped by combat troops, support troops, or NKVD troops, just like the Russians didn't care if the attrocities were committed by SS, SD, Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht.

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Nazi camps were not war crimes. They were simply crimes, period.

Succinct and perfectly put. It should also be noted that the German camps were a political decision, taken befor the war had even started, whose scope expanded to encompass all the enemies, real or imagined , of the regime. There was little difference between them and Gulags. Camps per se had nothing to do with the war but were essentially the creation of bunch of criminally sick minds who held power at that time.

It should be noted that the British in the Boer war imprisoned women and kids to force their menfolk to give themselves up. Now would that be a war crime, because in a sense, these concentration camps were directly linked to the suppression of an indipendent people...

[amatteucci]

The decision to build the camps was taken before the war but the decision to use them as extermination camps was taken during the war. In this latter respect they were different from the GULag (not to speak of the British concentration camps!).

And, speaking of British concentration camps, it's worth noting that the Hague convention of 1899 was also prompted by "problems" arisen during the Boer war.

[vinnie71]

Ok this may sound gross but it should be said. Extermination camps were a 'natural' progression in the minds of who came up with the idea.  
 
But my main point here is that Mynok pointed out a really important issue that has to be stressed. The camps of whatever designation were not a war crime - that crime had been planned and committed well before the war had started and was only exacerbated by the war itself. It was a crime against humanity in modern day parlance - and a crime committed by a government not the armed services per se. Not one of the armed forces was proven to have participated in throwing people in camps or anything of the sort. I'm not saying that war/military crimes were not committed. Far from it, and we probably know the tip of the iceberg. Yet for a long time there was a whole argument if one should brand the Waffen SS as a criminal organisation or not because of their association with the larger setup.
 
Shooting, torturing or mistreating POWs or innocents is a war crime, for example. Why? Because it was committed by an armed service against the conventions or rules of war. Many for example, consider German armed merchant raiders as basically war criminals, because of the methods used, but there are divergent views as well. Even such orders such as the Commissar order originated with the government, and therefore it was the government that was responsible for it, not the armed services.
 
In a sense the use of concentration camps agains the Boers was a war crime because innocents were incarcerated in order to suppress a rebellion. It went well beyond what was understood as typical hostage taking, and the camps were essentially linked to a failing military campaign.
 
I believe that even in Nuremburg the prosecuters made this distinction between a military crime and a criminal government. Unfortunately nowadays this distinction seems to have been forgotten, especially in certain high level trials that took place recently.