 
|
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 Bruce from DC on August 01, 2000 at 14:58:40:
***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...
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
