 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Das Boot. posted by Colby on July 31, 2000 at 18:56:55:
I guess this reviewer was disappointed that the film did not demonize the captain and the crew.I think the point the film made was that combat and submarine duty transcended politics -- hardly something unique to this film. The political officer was portrayed as a useless punk. In one instance of a ship sinking, the captain is appalled to learn after the final torpedo hits the target that the crew has not already abandoned ship.
I believe that the film depicts actual events as related in the logs of various U-Boat captains.
It is not clear that Nazi military had anything in particular to apologize for in their conduct of the war against opposing military units. With respect to U-Boats in particular, I do not believe there is any documented instance of a U-Boat crew shooting survivors in the water after their ship had been sunk. There are one or two such instances in which US submarine crews in the Pacific fired on survivors of Japanese ships they had sunk.
In fact there are some instances where U-Boat captains attempted to render some assistance to the crews of ships which they had sunk.
Certainly there is nothing in the Germans' record that compares with the actions of the Japanese army in Bataan or in Nanking.As more modern experience (e.g. Iraq, Cuba, N. Korea), as well as the history of Nazi Germany, demonstrates it is easy to say that the military should have mutined against such a corrupt and brutal ruler. But accomplishing that is very hard, especially in a nation with no democratic tradition.
The Holocaust, of course, is the glaring exception and is without justification or excuse. But I'm not sure what the Nazi submarine crews were supposed to have done about it.
I suppose Das Boot's refusal to demonize its characters is viewed by some as an apology for the Nazi regime; but I never saw it that way.
RBB --
"Still getting the wax out of my ears."
Follow Ups:
***It is not clear that Nazi military had anything in particular to apologize for in their conduct of the war against opposing military units.I disagree with that statement, Bruce. I suspect I know what you mean here, but you make it sound just too universal.
Sure enough the Nazi military did spend some of its time fighting opposing armies. But one simply can't overlook the fact that they also bombed cities, burned villages and towns, killed hostages, all in the name of racial superiority. When the "honorable" German forces besieged Leningrad and were systematically starving its people (not troops, but all civilians) - how was THAT related to their "conduct against opposing military units"? Watching thousand people die every day, while sitting in comfortable shelters, and sending few heavy rounds into the stubborn city every now and then - is that the stuff the limitary honor is made of?
Like it or not, this was as natural to the Nazi army as blowing up the attacking tanks.
Again, I think way too much is made of the fact that the 'commom' officers and soldiers were not tried for their deeds. That was not done simply because the system was already overburdened, not because they had nothing to apologize for. That was not your usual war, it was a war aimed at exterminating the untermenchen and every active participant in it was a criminal.
The common excuse "SS did it!" is not even paper thin.
***In fact there are some instances where U-Boat captains attempted to render some assistance to the crews of ships which they had sunk.
Certainly there is nothing in the Germans' record that compares with the actions of the Japanese army in Bataan or in Nanking.When it comes to attrocities, the Nazi take the second seat to no one. You are right when talking about the Bataan, but then you should be consistent.
***As more modern experience (e.g. Iraq, Cuba, N. Korea), as well as the history of Nazi Germany, demonstrates it is easy to say that the military should have mutined against such a corrupt and brutal ruler. But accomplishing that is very hard, especially in a nation with no democratic tradition.That would presume that there was strong resentment regarding the Nazi policies in the German Army. There is no such evidence. Generally speaking it was very supportive of the expansion to the East, and it was not until some severe failures that the resentment set in.
***The Holocaust, of course, is the glaring exception and is without justification or excuse.
No, it is not an exception at all. It was part of the doctrine, anyway you slice it. It was integral to what had been happening since 1933. It was not some 'corrupt cop' story - it was the essence of the Nazi regime.
***But I'm not sure what the Nazi submarine crews were supposed to have done about it.I don't know. It is simply the fact that they served the evil and they commited murders in the name of that evil. Other than that, OK, no problem, they were fine and honorable military men...
Unwittingly, I have started this long thread. To recap: we got here because I argued that DB was not an apology for the Nazi regime; and that what it showed was not at variance with other accounts of the submarine war in the Atlantic.
Responding to a couple of points.First, the fact that the Germans' motivation or purpose for WWII was especially evil is, in my view, not useful in judging their military units' conduct. I do not think it would be ok for American sub crews to shoot Japanese survivors in lifeboats just because the Americans were fighting for "truth, justice and the American Way." Conversely, I don't think it is evil for U-Boat crews to concentrate their efforts on North Atlantic shipping lanes to sink ships supplying Great Britain or the USSR because the Nazis were fighting for world domination. At the general staff level, where such plans were formulated and carried out, yes there should be responsibility for pursuing an unjust cause. But at the operational unit level, no I don't see culpability for the cause that these units served.
Second, a post-hoc judgment of combatants' behavior is an extraordinarily perilous undertaking (unless, of course, you measure the behavior by the yardstick of the cause for which the combatants fought). I had intended to classify as clearly "bad," violence intentionally (not incidentally) directed at non-combatants, whether civilans or prisoners-of-war. Victor, your mention of the Katyan Woods (sp?) massacre of the Polish officer corps identified a significant omission in my account. I stand corrected.
Incidental violence against civilians is a tough yardstick to use. Both sides get caught up in that net. Yes, the German air campaign, especially the use of "guided" missles against Britain was nothing but a terror campaign. But what was the military justification for the allied firebombing of Dresden -- that Germans lived there? Same question for the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities? The use of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki? Yes, the U-Boats torpedoed or shot every allied vessel they could find in the North Atlantic. But the US waged a comparable -- and ultimately more successful -- submarine war against Japan with similar tactics.
Third, I do not see the U-Boats -- or any other military units -- as "samurai" fighting the "honorable fight" etc. In fact, I have serious doubts that the samurai themselves were the "honorable warriors" that they have become in legend and literature. Obviously, it serves the purposes of those who tell their stories to make them so.
Rather, I see the U-Boats as small, increasingly isolated military units with very few choices. That is the picture given by DB, and I do not find it inaccurate. If it makes any difference, both US and German sub crews suffered the highest casualty ratios in their countries' respective armed forces.
RBB --
"Still getting the wax out of my ears."
***Unwittingly, I have started this long thread.Yes, and your punishment will be watching Judgement At Nuremberg fifty times...
***Responding to a couple of points.
***First, the fact that the Germans' motivation or purpose for WWII was especially evil is, in my view, not useful in judging their military units' conduct. I do not think it would be ok for American sub crews to shoot Japanese survivors in lifeboats just because the Americans were fighting for "truth, justice and the American Way."
I don't think anyone was suggesting that. There are, however, 'just' and 'unjust' wars. Funny part is that the same war can be both. What had started as a very unjust one when Stalin took Poland, eventually turned into a 'just' war, only to become questionable again towards its end.
But you are right in essence - no amount of 'just' allows for any atrocities to be commited. And I think the US had shown many times that it indeed takes such issues quite seriously. Most armies do have some dark spots on their histories, though.
***Conversely, I don't think it is evil for U-Boat crews to concentrate their efforts on North Atlantic shipping lanes to sink ships supplying Great Britain or the USSR because the Nazis were fighting for world domination. At the general staff level, where such plans were formulated and carried out, yes there should be responsibility for pursuing an unjust cause. But at the operational unit level, no I don't see culpability for the cause that these units served.Well, we obvioulsy differ on this account. You would be right if not for the general atmosphere of support and enthusiasm in Germany before and during the early stages of war. Remember, most Germans were to benefit from that 'plentiful slave labor'. Rome revisited...
***Incidental violence against civilians is a tough yardstick to use. Both sides get caught up in that net. Yes, the German air campaign, especially the use of "guided" missles against Britain was nothing but a terror campaign. But what was the military justification for the allied firebombing of Dresden -- that Germans lived there? Same question for the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities? The use of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki? Yes, the U-Boats torpedoed or shot every allied vessel they could find in the North Atlantic. But the US waged a comparable -- and ultimately more successful -- submarine war against Japan with similar tactics.It is always helpful to look at who the agressor is in every conflict. I would not hesitate to state that the agressor does surrender a lot of his rights as result of his actions - much like a criminal does. Pretty much all responsibility for loss of lives, both in the army and cvilians, falls on him. The prime responsibility of the government fighting the agressor is in preserving the lives of ITS own citizens.
That is related also to the question of treating the POW's at a time when your own citizens die every day of starvation and lack of medical help - how many resources should be takes away from the innocent victims in order to support the lives of the agressor's soldiers. My mother-in-law's family was evacuated during the war to Tashkent. There both parents died of hunger, and two young girls had to struggle to stay alive after burring them. In that case I am sorry, but I do not feel that the bread and medicine, that were so sorely scarce, should have been diverted to the German soldiers captured at Stalingrad. For all I care, they should have been put in the besieged Leningrad to die slow agonizing deaths alongside with about one million of its citizens who perished during the 900 days of that blocade.***Third, I do not see the U-Boats -- or any other military units -- as "samurai" fighting the "honorable fight" etc. In fact, I have serious doubts that the samurai themselves were the "honorable warriors" that they have become in legend and literature. Obviously, it serves the purposes of those who tell their stories to make them so.
It is quite funny that you brought up the subject of 'samurai'. Just recently I stumbled over this page:
http://www.links2go.com/more/www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/
...and it chilled my blood. It is about the 'honorable samurai' behavior, and includes the storis on massacres and on dissecting of the American POW's.When I look at the frightening photos of Japanese officers leaning on their bloodied swords smiling and holding chopped-off humand heads proudly displayed - I know I shall never be collecting those 'honorable samurai' swords.
Sorry for the rant, but certain things do touch me deeply. I do not find anything in your posts offensive, BTW, just stimulating discussion.
If I had the choice between dying at sea of thirst while hanging on to a bit of flotsam or being shot I think I'd choose the latter. Death is merciful if life is abhorrent.
In the instances I was referring to (both the US crews gunning down survivors and the U-Boat crews' assistance), the survivors were in lifeboats. The U-Boat captains' logs were corraborated by survivors' acocunts. I believe the survivors were given water and perhaps some food by the U-Boat crews.At least in the Atlantic, there was a very large amount of shipping traffic in defined "lanes." This made the chances of rescue fairly good if you were in a lifeboat. Obviously, if you were in the water in the North Atlantic, hypothermia would finish you in an hour or less.
I personally know a man who served as a fireman (coal stoker) on both military and civilian ships in WWII. He had two ships sunk from under him. One was torpedoed; I can't remember what sank the other one. Needless to say, since I was born after WWII, he survived all of these sinkings.
As many survivors of that era will tell you, they were grateful for even a 1 percent chance of making it out alive.
An interesting and somewhat unrelated bit of information: during the "Battle of Britain" in 1940 the Germans unleashed a furious air attack on Britain. There were large numbers of planes shot down by both sides, and many of them went down in or over the English Channel. One of the factors that allowed the British to survive the Nazi onslaught was that they were better at rescuing downed pilots than the Germans. The planes could be reproduced fairly easily; an experienced combat pilot cannot be.
RBB --
"Still getting the wax out of my ears."
*At least in the Atlantic, there was a very large amount of shipping traffic in defined "lanes." This made the chances of rescue fairly good if you were in a lifeboat. Obviously, if you were in the water in the North Atlantic, hypothermia would finish you in an hour or less.*
Precisely, and the German wolf-packs knew where those routes were, thus sinking millions of tons of cargo as well as thousands of people while waiting for them along the convoy tracks.
Books I found interesting about this subject were Valentin Pikul's "Requiem for the caravan # PQ17" and a book by an American author, whose name I forgot, titled "Convoy".
Evidently you picture the U-boats as sort of samurai warriors, thus providing examples of gracious warfare on their part, whereas there were soldiers who did their duty without stooping to sadism(and that line is so thin) and henchmen on both sides.
Do you know who captain Marinesco was? Wilhelm Gustlov tragedy of 1944; 6000 on board, 1200 survivors?Ask any German WWII vet about who gassed people in the camps and burned whole villages in Belorussia, and he will most likely answer - "It was all SS' doing."
***Ask any German WWII vet about who gassed people in the camps and burned whole villages in Belorussia, and he will most likely answer - "It was all SS' doing."I agree. It seems ironic that with the concentration camps *industry* running full steam, busy producing human skin handbags and lamp shades, human hair mattresses, etc., apparently not only was no one buying all that merchandise, but was not even aware of its existence.
Hearing the stories about the Luftwaffe aces soluting their downed adversary, having just come back from bombing hell out of Coventry makes me want to throw up.
Some people take the fact that only, I believe, 19 or so Nazi officers were convicted at Nuremberg, as a complete exoneration of all officers. In fact, not just the Soviet, but also the Western prosecutors did not like that fact, but were simply reluctant to go ahead with more "witch hunt" for number of reasons.
Russians went about it a bit differently.
I believe that only 2000 or so German war prisoners came out of Soviet concentration camps in 1955, out of a million or two. Built the railroads, oil wells, worked in manganese deposits and chemical plants, cleared up the taiga and died.
What is more moral(or immoral)- using war prisoners as slaves and lab rats or dropping 2 atomic bombs on children and elderly?
War is hell.P.S. Saw an NTV segment yesterday - a Hungarian man who spent the last 50 years in a Russian psychiatric hospital was just released and sent back home. He says that he saw Raoul Vallenberg in a psihushka in the late 40s - early 50s. Russians say Vallenberg died in Lubianka in 1947, convicted of spying for the US. Man saved 10 thousand Hungarian Jews.
***I believe that only 2000 or so German war prisoners came out of Soviet concentration camps in 1955, out of a million or two.Your figures are wrong. I don't have sources with me, but I have been through this subject before and the number of Germans who survived the captivity was I believe in 50% or higher. Your number I suspect is an extrapolation of the Paulus army story - if I remember correctly some 5000 to 10000 made it out of about 300,000. That was very early in the war and things changed later, so it was not even close to 2000 overall.
***Built the railroads, oil wells, worked in manganese deposits and chemical plants, cleared up the taiga and died.Sounds reasonable to me. No?
***What is more moral(or immoral)- using war prisoners as slaves and lab rats or dropping 2 atomic bombs on children and elderly?
According to many accounts the alternatives would mean many more Japanese killed. Estimate for the blocade were close to 30 million Japanese civilians dead from starvation, so 100000 or so from a-bomb can be considered a humane thing for both sides.
This, however, is a comletely separate subject.
***War is hell.
I don't like that phrase - it is used too often as an excuse. This is like saying "crime is bad". There are cases and there are cases. Killing the bomber's crew while shooting it down is one thing, shooting 10,000 Polish officers in Katin woods is another. Letting 1 million civilians die in a besieged city is different from shooting Soviet tanks at Prokhorovka.
***P.S. Saw an NTV segment yesterday - a Hungarian man who spent the last 50 years in a Russian psychiatric hospital was just released and sent back home. He says that he saw Raoul Vallenberg in a psihushka in the late 40s - early 50s. Russians say Vallenberg died in Lubianka in 1947, convicted of spying for the US. Man saved 10 thousand Hungarian Jews.
I believe there have been numerous accounts of people seeing him many years after the war. Knowing what was going on in the USSR this doesn't take ANY effort to belive.
*Your number I suspect is an extrapolation of the Paulus army story - if I remember correctly some 5000 to 10000 made it out of about 300,000. That was very early in the war and things changed later, so it was not even close to 2000 overall.*Perhaps I was wrong in the numerical sense, no denying that, however, 5000 out of 300,000 sounds quite reasonable(if it can be).
Battle of Stalingrad was fought from Summer of 1942 till Feb. 2, 1943 exactly, so I wouldn't call that early in the war, perhaps on the bulge. As far as the numbers go, 91,000 troops turned themselves over to the Soviets. The Soviets recovered 250,000 German and Romanian corpses in and around Stalingrad and total Axis losses (Germans, Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) are estimated to have been 800,000 dead. Official Russian military historians esitmate that 1,100,000 Soviet soldiers lost their lives in the campaign to defend the city.
What do you mean by "things changed later"?
---------------
*According to many accounts the alternatives would mean many more Japanese killed. Estimate for the blocade were close to 30 million Japanese civilians dead from starvation, so 100000 or so from a-bomb can be considered a humane thing for both sides.*Interesting utilitarian take, but "yesli-by da kaby":)) Are you calling Truman a humanist? I think he couldn't careless how many Japanese soldiers and civilians would perish in the siege. It was a political bomb, that's what I think of it. How about bombing of Tokyo and the subsequent fires that killed thousands? Couldn't the Americans drop their atomic bombs on a deserted island or naval base or imperial escadra; the effect would be just as devastating. A show-and-tell like this would perhaps install the same fear in Japanese high command.
Remember the Damansky island that was whiped off the map by the Russians when Chinese occupied it. Nobody bombed Shanghai. Chinese promptly removed their forces around Amur river and Russian border after that.
------------------
****War is hell.I don't like that phrase - it is used too often as an excuse. This is like saying "crime is bad". There are cases and there are cases. Killing the bomber's crew while shooting it down is one thing, shooting 10,000 Polish officers in Katin woods is another. Letting 1 million civilians die in a besieged city is different from shooting Soviet tanks at Prokhorovka.*
I didn't use that sentence as an excuse for the said war, but simply expressed my opinion. Viktor, could you please elaborate on your comparison of bombers, Katyn' and Prokhorovka?
Regards
Usual estimates for prisoners taken at Stalingrad are in the 90,000 to 100,000 range. Also, out of these, about 60,000 were dead already by the spring of 43. Out of 90+K about 5000 survived.What I meant by "things changed" was that this case was in the middle of the most critical period, when the treatment was perhaps the worst. Prisoners captured towards the war's end had much better odds of surviving. Will look for more stats.
Just quick for now, will try to comeback again.1. Will try to dig out some numbers.
2. Not ready yet to start a war over the A-bomb, but one never knows
3. Will try. Did you see the story on Khatyn vs. Katyn?
http://www.go.com/?win=_search&sv=M6&qt=katyn&oq=&url=http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p230_FitzGibbon.html&ti=Khatyn+vs+Katyn&top=
I was thinking about the "therapeutic" usage of an A-bomb and the slaughther of 10,000 to 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn by the Soviets that you'd mentioned. Perhaps it was as "therapeutic" as the A-bomb you mentioned. An army without command is a dead army. So, 15,000 dead Poles against 100,000 dead Japanese. What's more humain then?
I really don't want to start a discussion over an atomic bomb either. I have a point of view on that, which is probably pretty solid, but another aspect is always interesting to read. As you might've guessed I am something of a pacifist, but I take interest in reading war stories and always go into the Medeival arms and armour wing of the Met.
I read the article about Kh vs. K and to my eyes it's nothing more than yet another revisionist paper. Appearance and disappearance of both places on the Soviet-era maps(of 1950s-70s to boot) doesn't prove or disprove anything. Soviet cartography was as politicised and incorrect as anything. Actually, Soviet maps were notoriously inaccurate. I read several accounts of geologists and geographers doing field research with these maps, noting their tremendous shift, compression and inaccuracy(purposeful, I suppose). One geologist wrote that all the major reserch was done using western maps which, after the field research was over, were to be returned to you know who. Add the freaky secrecy of the Soviet era and you get this article, based on nothing more than speculative and overimaginative thinking.
I am not sure about your negative reaction to that article. While it is not that everyone should just take it at face value, using the word "revisionist" is in my view uncalled for. Surely you are not saying that there is something sacred or God given about the Soviet history. Nothing in the story strikes me as implausible. If anything, many new things about it are what I would call 'discoveries'.
Victor, I'm not sure if the article was a genuine piece of historical reporting. I know that the Soviets killed those people in Katyn', no dispute here; Now, as far as the Khatyn' fires are concerned I really need more than a few lines on the internet to prove the hoax, if there were any.
Peace.
No argument here. I myself am curious too and will try to find out more. So far I spoke to several people, usually well informed, and got nowhere.What do YOU know about Kh?
(nt)
**In one instance of a ship sinking, the captain is appalled to learn after the final torpedo hits the target that the crew has not already abandoned ship.**
Poor sailors, they are going to get sunburnt, then hungry, then mad, and then they will die. But we were only aiming at the cargo. Oh, well, wir erledigten nur unsere arbeit. Aufmerksamkeit.**With respect to U-Boats in particular, I do not believe there is any documented instance of a U-Boat crew shooting survivors in the water after their ship had been sunk.**
Yes, those people were quite merciful. Why waste ammo on someone who'll drown anyway, right?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
