D-Day

[Lady Sidhe]

We have a D-Day Memorial Museum in New Orleans. From what I hear, it's pretty big, and just amazing to walk through. I haven't been yet, but I want to go.


Sidhe

[wolf]

I'm not sure, but I think tw just implied "they were only following orders."

[lookout123]

The German people such as those coastal security regiments were really a victim of a misguided and corrupted leadership. Soldiers who then had to sit in pill boxes and mow down invaders on the beach until most of the German defenders were killed (sometimes outright butchered in violation of Geneva principles).

a large proprotion of the german coastal units were conscripted troops from occupied countries. there were polish, russian, and korean conscriptees forced to fight with german nco's behind them prepared to shoot anyone who left their position.

are the Geneva principles you are referring to the ones that were agreed upon in 1949?
and could you please define "butchered"?

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
We have a D-Day Memorial Museum in New Orleans. From what I hear, it's pretty big, and just amazing to walk through. I haven't been yet, but I want to go.


Sidhe

that started as a project and has grown into a full blown museum. Stephen Ambrose was the director up until his death. they have the largest collection of WWII vet's individual oral histories in existence. anyone who was involved in WWII can hae their history included. Ambrose relied heavily upon the interviews he did for the museum in writing his books. (Citizen Soldiers, D-Day, Band of Brothers, etc.)

[tw]

Originally posted by lookout123
are the Geneva principles you are referring to the ones that were agreed upon in 1949?
and could you please define "butchered"?

The wording "Geneva principles" was a reference to laws that would exist in the future. But the point is both sides were fighting and killing per the principles we were later to define in Geneva.

As for butchered: there is a scene in Saving Private Ryan were German coastal defenders are butchered. Killed after they had surrendered. Americans do not have a monopoly on only being the good guys. That scene is based on many reported events that did occur on D-Day and after. Band of Brothers also makes reference to butchering.

It happens. It was done on both sides. But that should not detract from a larger and more important perspective. Those soldiers on both sides were victims of the time. They did as they were expected to due. And for the most part they did just what the Geneva Conventions would define as legal. Those soldiers on both sides deserve the respect due on D-Day. They more than us suffered the greatests losses by only doing their duty.

[tw]

Originally posted by wolf
I'm not sure, but I think tw just implied "they were only following orders."

Allow me to be more specific. They were only following orders. Orders that were as legal then as they are today under the Geneva Convention. It is what war is about and why war should be fought for nothing less than a smoking gun.

Leadership screws up. Little people suffer the consequences. How many innocent Vietnamese were killed because America decided to fight an illegal and unjustified war in Vietnam - based upon outright lies from Richard Nixon. Because Richard Nixon so blantantly lied, then well over 1/2 million American soldiers don't deserved to be honored for their sacrifice? It is the least we must do; to honor the little people on all sides who did and lost the most - only because they did what is required of them by society.

To not give German soldiers their just recognition would be to make a decision only based upon emotion. "They were Germans; therefore they were evil". That is Rush Limbaugh logic. It is simplistic, sophmoric, and wrong. The evil was back there in the Reich. Many hanged for their crimes. Unfortuntately too many innocent soldiers on both sides had to die before the real problem could be eliminated. Welcome to what war is all about.

No member of the Third Reich should been honored at those D-Day celebrations. Everyone else should be welcome and should be honored to meet the men they once had to kill. It is what society really comes down to. It is even a concept that every truly religious person should fully understand without question or doubt.

Am I posting something so new to everyone here? Posted is nothing new or revolutionary.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Am I posting something so new to everyone here? Posted is nothing new or revolutionary.

No, but it's something that should be repeated often. Good job, TW.

[lookout123]

i didn't say that all germans were evil. i didn't say any germans were evil. what i said is that the german people, before anyone else, had the ability to prevent the war, that made D-Day a necessity. i think the german soldier who fought honorably should be remembered. i just don't know that normandy was the right place to have them.

as far as the butchering? well, glad to see you get your info from the movies. i actually expected that you would have cited a few historical works to support it, but it isn't necessary.

soldier's on both sides generally fought in an honorable manner. not because they thought there would be written rules just a few years later, but because each soldier was ruled by their own conscience. but don't kid yourself - they didn't fight based on an iron-clad set of rules. they did what ever needed to be done to accomplish the mission at hand. some of the things they did qualify as atrocities today. at the time they saw what they did as necessary for the cause and they weren't worried about some camera crew or international courts. Lt Col West (the guy who fired the weapon near the prisoner's head) would not have even been given a second thought during that time period. mission first. all else second.

[tw]

Originally posted by lookout123
i didn't say that all germans were evil. i didn't say any germans were evil. what i said is that the german people, before anyone else, had the ability to prevent the war, that made D-Day a necessity. i think the german soldier who fought honorably should be remembered. i just don't know that normandy was the right place to have them.

And I never said that you said all germans were evil. You are reading into my post things I did not say.

Originally posted by lookout123
as far as the butchering? well, glad to see you get your info from the movies. i actually expected that you would have cited a few historical works to support it, but it isn't necessary.

You did not ask for historical citings. You asked for examples of what is meant by butchering. Again you are reading into my post things I did not say.

What I did say is that German soldiers of D-Day should be part of the D-Day celebrations.

If everyone was fighting only to accomplish the mission, then why were Germans so more willing to surrender to Americans than to Russians? Both Americans and Russians were doing everything necessary to accomoplish objectives. Why was it so much better to surrender to rather than fight the Americans - when both Russians and Americans were doing same "to accomplish the mission at hand"? Did Americans have rules of war that the Russians did not?

And if there were no such rules of war, then how did those Germans who massacred captured Americans at (was it Mandalay?) during the Battle of the Bulge end up getting prosecuted? How do we prosecute someone for a rule that did not exist?

[lookout123]

Originally posted by tw

If everyone was fighting only to accomplish the mission, then why were Germans so more willing to surrender to Americans than to Russians?

the americans approached the fight from a different perspective than the russians did. for the american serviceman the fight was something that had to be finished before he could go home. it wasn't an issue of hating the germans for the american gi. many WWII vets held the germans in much higher regard than they did the french. they interrogated them when necessary and killed them when necessary to accomplish whatever mission at hand.

the gi, in general, did not hold the level of contempt for the german soldiers that the russians did. the war hadn't been brought to the gate of any major american city. the russian soldiers were well aware of the russian civilians who had died at the hands of the germans. they approached the german soldier with contempt and with a desire for revenge. the german soldier was well aware of that.

And if there were no such rules of war, then how did those Germans who massacred captured Americans at (was it Mandalay?) during the Battle of the Bulge end up getting prosecuted? How do we prosecute someone for a rule that did not exist?

i am not aware of the prosecution of any front line troops after teh battle of the bulge. i believe you are talking about the Malmedy Massacre. the american response to that was the order from Headquarters, 328th IR, Dec 21. "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight." (ambrose, citizen soldiers)

[tw]

Originally posted by lookout123
i am not aware of the prosecution of any front line troops after teh battle of the bulge. i believe you are talking about the Malmedy Massacre. the american response to that was the order from Headquarters, 328th IR, Dec 21. "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight." (ambrose, citizen soldiers)

There most certainly was a trial. I just could not remember the exact name of that nearby village.

Just not sure how those Germans were originally given death sentences without there being something eqivalent to and preceding a Geneva Convention. And BTW, even back then, torture was not permitted by the US military - no matter what lawyers for George Jr can invent. Because of illegal torture, those death sentences were commuted:
Malmedy Massacre Trial

Answer was in the second (following page). US signed the 1929 Geneva Convention. Russia did not.

[lookout123]

good research tw. i wasn't saying there weren't any prosecutions, i just wasn't aware of them. good job.

edit: spelling. need more beer.