[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@Kissaki
Thank for atleast looking at this logically. I'm glad you can atleast agree with parts of an arguement and disagree with others. Many people cannot make that distinction.

No problem, Dead Mans Hand. I may not agree with everything you say, and may in fact thoroughly disagree with you on some points, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and your right to have your own opinions. There's a right way and a wrong way to voice those opinions however, and you're being more respectful and well-mannered than most. Regardless of what a person's opinion is, so long as he is being rational and well-mannered, I will hear him out and perhaps engage in debate. I don't care if he's in support of capital punishment for anyone called Mike - if he's being courteous in his arguments, I will return that courtesy. Resorting to ad hominem attacks - regardless of what one might think of a person - is immature, and injurious to one's own case.

However as for quarter, if a man goes out to field he has actively chosen to go to battle. I feel that as long as no quarter is asked, it is acceptable for none to be given. Justice is balance, as long as there is not a double standard I find it to be honorable.

I do not see how a surrendering soldier disrupts the balance in any way. Most soldiers do not wish to be fighting, they do not wish for war. They do it either because they feel it's necessary, or because it's preferable to the repercussions. There were people like Funkgefreiter Werner Hess (U-530) who said:

"I went into the U-boat arm of my own free will. The first reason for this was that one could earn a lot of money. The second reason was that in this way I could help my father. He was a well-known Social Democrat and had enormous difficulties under Hitler. Life on a U-boat was hard and primitive but after I became a U-boat man my father was left in peace."
("Convoy", Martin Middlebrook, 2003)

I don't think he was less deserving of quarter for joining the Kriegsmarine. If, as a combattant, you yourself would give quarter (as is your duty by law, and hopefully conscience), why should you not be able to expect the same thing? There are, of course, episodes when you simply can't afford to take any prisoners, but by and large you do. If you have thrown down your arms, you are no longer a fighting soldier, nor should you be treated as such. The killings in war is out of necessity, not revenge. If it's out of revenge, it's an unmitigated atrocity.

As per the unspoken agreement between Japanese and the US, the Japanese would not surrender and would break the credence of surrender to attack - so we stopped accepting. Fair and understandable. It is not acceptable for me to dishonor men who are if nothingelse, honest. Thank you for recognizing Rommel. He is my personal favorite.

I am not aware of any such unspoken agreement. I am aware, however, that Japanese did occasionally surrender - and by the war's end, in large numbers. At first, there were soldiers who would surrender saying, "Now that I am captured, I wish to take my own life. If your ways do not allow this, however, I shall be a model prisoner." And model prisoners they were. They had not been instructed in what they could and could not tell, and several bombing raids had Japanese POWs among their crews, who knew the location of hidden bunkers. It wasn't until later that the Japanese government rectified their blunder, and started instructing soldiers about what they were and were not allowed to reveal.

The reason the Allied were cautious about accepting Japanese surrenders was bad experiences. Two men would surrender, the first with his hands in the air and the second priming a grenade. Of any unspoken agreement I know not.

The SS are demonized because they were feared. Veterans of all nations returned home with nightmares of men that would fight with the ferocity of boars. You're only mistatement is that the majority of European countries were Nazi countries. Lets not forget, Hitler and the Nazi party started in the Ostereich.

Could you point out where I've said that most European countries were Nazi countries? I am positive I have not said this, and if I did, it was a mistake on my part. I believe I said something about hate having extended to include the whole of Europe IF there hadn't been any Allied nations there... my point being that even though the majority of Europe wasn't Nazi, they would still be hated for being on the same continent as the Nazies (just like some people hate ALL the Germans for what the Nazies did).

To acknoweldge "what goes around comes around" is to acknoweldge that almost all of Nazi "crimes" were reprisals.

I disagree. The Holocaust constitutes the bulk of Nazi crimes, and "what goes around comes around" does not fit the bill here. When I used that phrase in referance to Berlin, it's because of the Wehrmacht's brutal campaign in Russia - the Russians wanted to get even, and the Germans knew it. That doesn't make it right, however, as two wrongs don't make a right. But it was to be expected.