Firstly I would like to say that the link posted before hand in reference to "attrocities" is almost 90% bull****. Yes, yes blame the SS!! But the majority of those "attrocities" were commited in reprisal to attack, that's right they were provoked. Lets blame the ****s that attacked and then hid amongst civilians (partisans of all nationalities French, Russian, etc.) How is that to be delt with? When civilians carry weapons they become soldiers, when they harbor soldiers, they commit an act of war. War is hell, those who get involved cannot expect to be spared the blade.
Malmedy pisses me off too. Soldiers have no right to surrender, it makes no sense. Seriously look at it, before being surrounded or running out of food/ammo/whatever these men tried to kill as many of their enemies as they possibly could. So why the hell after taking life should they be spared?? Simply, they have no right to quarter. You can't start to fight then just quit. That applies to the Germans that the Allies tortured and killed (enmasse) as well as the Allies that recieved the same **** treatment. How much of the 6th Army left Russia?? Units like the HitlerJugend exemplafied the concept of fighting to the death. Yes they were young, you may argue they were brainwashed, but you cannot deny their honor and courage. Nor can you deny the 101st that served in Bastogne, or the 81st Airborne, which Montgomery dropped on the 2nd SS panzer divison... (Another Brit that was overly arrogant and cost many lifes)
IMHO: People demonize the SS today, because of the fear they instilled in their enemies. They took no quarter and most asked for none. They were model soldiers and to deny their bravery and ferocity is foolish. Even from the perspective that they commited crimes (aside from the Totenkopf SS which was at the camps, I'm not saying that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't bad.) I mean if you were to say soldiers that killed innocents were all bad you'd have to take into consideration things such as:
The fire bombing of Dresden that Winston Churchill ordered and destroyed a city, not a village.
With your rationale this makes Winston Churchill a bigger bastard than any SS commandant. This also discredits all Allied pilots, since they carried it out.
Two sources for Dresden: Note that the 2nd supports Churchill, but does not deny his ordering of the attack and infact only tries to excuse it avoiding any actual statistics of the people he'd ordered murdered in an attempt to make him look noble.
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=106
Also explain to me how you feel about the rest of the carpet bombing that took place in German cities devoid largely of troops, but housing civilians. How is it ok for the Allies too destroy entire cities so they don't produce "war goods" in your eyes, but to destroy a small village of 90 because of those villagers attacking and killing Germans is so horrible?? You have a horrible double standard there.
And what about what Eisenhower allowed to happen in Berlin by holding Patton back???? What about the rape, murder, looting, and torture that went on in Berlin??? You seem to mind that. War is hell, so don't think I'm whinning. What happened happened because the German people surrendered to soldiers (Just like the SS were soldiers) and soldiers kill.
You asked in the other thread about my perspective: I spoke with three men that had survived in Berlin, one lucky enough to be in west and two that ended up in Eastern Berlin - the Allies all are guilty of as many if not more deaths by knowningly allowing Stalin to do what he did. Ofcourse I do not include McArthur and Patton who both wished to tople the USSR as well. However Churchill, Mongomery, Eisenhower, etc all knew what happened and let it happen. So, maybe we should start a thread dedicated to allied war crimes?