I hate to rain on you parade once more but:

"Red Army troops began storming the Chancellery at approximately 23:00, about 7 hours and 30 minutes after Hitler's death. On 2 May the remains of Hitler, Braun and two dogs (thought to be Blondi and her offspring Wulf) were discovered in a shell crater by a unit of SMERSH which had orders to find Hitler's body.
The autopsy, contrary to public reports authorized by Stalin in 1945, recorded both gunshot damage to Hitler's skull and glass shards in his jaw. However, Stalin was wary about believing his old nemesis was dead.[15][16] The remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly buried and exhumed by SMERSH during the unit's relocation from Berlin to a new facility in Magdeburg where they, along with the charred remains of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and those of his wife Magda Goebbels and their six children, were buried in an unmarked grave beneath a paved section of the front courtyard. The location was kept highly secret.[17]
In 1969 Soviet journalist Lev Bezymensky's book on the SMERSH autopsy report was published in the West but because of earlier disinformation attempts historians may have thought it untrustworthy.[18]
In 1970 the SMERSH facility, by then controlled by the KGB, was scheduled to be handed over to the East German government. Fearing that a known Hitler burial site might become a Neo-Nazi shrine, KGB director Yuri Andropov authorised an operation to destroy the remains. A Soviet KGB team was given detailed burial charts and on 4 April 1970 they secretly exhumed and thoroughly burned the ten bodies, after which the ashes were thrown into in the Biederitz river, a tributary of the nearby Elbe river.[17][19]"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler

:03:

I hope they pissed in the ashes before chucking them in the river.

Steve

As I said, the video doesn't tell the whole story. If these were soldiers, did they fire on the sub? We don't know. Judging an action without all the facts is speculation, nothing more.

A video only shows you what the editor of that video wants you to see.

IN what possible context could shooting at those sailors in the water be justified? You can see helpless men being gunned down. It's plain to see. There is no room for nuance here. Trying to see that as being something other than what it is requires a highly convoluted logic.

Morton himself admitted to doing the very same thing as we see in the video so it not as if this video must be "edited".

2:13 We see a man in the water.

2:17 We see a close up of the same man, holding out his hand for help.

2:20 We see a US sailor with a sub-machine gun, shooting level, which implies his target is fairly far off. We don't see what he is shooting at.

2:23 We see three men in the water. There is a splash near them, which closely resembles the splash of a bullet.

2:25 We see several men in the water.

2:27 We see an AA crew firing a heavy machine gun.

2:29 We see splashes at a distance in the water. There is no obvious target.

2:32 We see what appears to be a body floating in the water, with no indication of how it got dead.

2:37 We see a close up of a man in the water.

2:43 We see a man firing a submachine gun at a closer target.

2:45 We do see a man in the water being shot.

2:48 We see an officer shooting a man in the water with a pistol.

There is one scene of a gun actually being fired at the men in the water - the rest is all cut.

Where do you see that they are helpless?

Convoluted logic? How so? There is nothing plain at all. I could just as easily argue that you are only seeing what you want to see, or what someone else wants you to see. I'm not, because I don't know any more than you do.

Not "must be edited", "IS edited". There is no question that none of the scenes are directly connected. It may be all sequential and edited just for time, or it may be maliciously edited to "prove" wrongdoing. My point is that we don't know one way or the other.

As I said, Morton also claimed that he was fired on first. Truth? Lie? Hero? Criminal? I'm not saying it didn't happen, or defending anybody. I'm just saying that the 'evidence' of that video is no evidence at all.

This is the description of the film.

You will notice that the film was edited by ROMANO-ARCHIVES. You will also notice that "The orders, due to the many cases of suicidal attacks with the use of explosives or hand grenades, were "to avoid and prevent with any means" the approaching to the US ships of shipwrecked Japanese sailors."

We clearly see men in the water being shot at. I don't know why you insist in arguing that it could be something else, when we see a man being shot in the water, and other sailors shooting hand held guns into the water. We even see bullet splashes near the men. Are you going to suggest that those splashes could be bird droppings? This is what convoluted means. In order to remain in denial, one needs to resort to ever more convoluted reasoning to explain away what is actually happening.

As someone who has served in the US Navy, you may not want to admit that this took place, and more than once. Morton gunned down men in the water. It is a well documented incident. And he was not punished for it because at the time, shooting at Japanese survivors was not considered a war crime especially if one of them was stupid enough to fire a bullet from a raft at a US ship. This also explains why this massacre was allowed to be filmed. At the time, this was not illegal.

This is correct and what I meant by policy. At the time, because of previous incidents of Japanese survivors fighting to the bitter end, the US Navy allowed the massacre of all survivors in the water. Sailor Steve is trying to say that what the video shows may not be that at all. But this is exactly what we are seeing. We are seeing this policy in action.

Erm...aside from the political stuff, FYI I have been thinking about making destructible survivors. I have a rough idea of how to do it - I managed to make destructible crewmembers on surface ships by replacing ventilator nodes &c.

Not that I would machine gun survivors myself, but lifeboats could (and did) suffer damage from burning oil slicks, secondary explosions, and stray deck gun rounds. The Allies [rightly] did not investigate German commanders after the war for these incidental casualties - IIRC only the captain who sank the "Peleus" was ever prosecuted.

I may try to include this feature in my WWI mod; if I am successful (big if) it will be easy to port it over to standard Silent Hunter 3 installations.

Please answer my point-by-point second-by-second examination rather than make accusations. Did I suggest they were bird droppings? You now accuse me of denial and fall back on your convoluted reasoning argument. I said I agreed, with the premise - bad things were done. Why do you keep avoiding that? Point-by-point please.

Where did I ever say it didn't take place? Specifics please, not accusations.

One more time - Morton claimed he was shot at first. I don't know if he was telling the truth or lying. I've said that repeatedly. My only point is that you don't know either, and the video is not sufficient evidence to make the claim.

Again, if you want to keep this up, stop claiming I've said what I never said and stop accusing me of denial and bad argument. Please examine the video point-by-point and counter what I've said, specifically - not what you want me to have said.

why did i start this thread?... it seems everyone is arguing now!:cry:

It was a very emotive theme, I could see it coming a mile off lol.

That said , I prefer to call it a heated discussion.:03:


Now - where did I put my popcorn?

Time for a cold frosty cider.

The only way you'll ever avoid that possibility is to never start a thread. You don't want to go down that road - it's even worse than things like this.

On the other hand, you didn't really think a thread expressing a desire to murder people in lifeboats was all that innocent, did you?

yeah thats true... i just wanted to add to the game a little..... i retract my want to murder survivors in lifeboats:03:

WOW... didnt know they went into it that deep.
i learned different in school.... guess my school taught thousands of kids wrong history info!
i can accept whe im wrong.
thanks for the info robbo

@2:42.... i think he is blowing himself up to avoid capture the splash is too big to be bullets., a grenade maybe?
didnt japs prefer to commit suicide instead of being captured and bringing dishonor to their families?

I have a friend who says that he didn't fall in love with history until he was in this thirties (somewhat like myself) and at that time he was suddenly possessed by a desire to find his old high-school history teacher and beat him bloody for making it so boring!
:rotfl2:

Some people complain about schools and school boards having special agendas for teaching things a certain way. I feel the greater likelihood is that they have a limited amount of time, and can only present what they think is most important.

Do you want to know more about a specific piece of history? Read several books that discuss the same subject, preferably from different points of view. Want to know more about a specific person? Read every biography you can find on that person, or else ask someone who has read many to recommend the one he things is best if you don't have time for more than one.

Never trust what any single person says about a subject. The more footnotes provided the better, but even then you need to assume the chance that they might be slanting the story one way or another.

And going into a discussion always assume you may be wrong, and don't state what you can't actually prove. The person who assumes he's right is the person who can't deal with what happens when it turns out he's wrong. And sooner or later every one of us is wrong about something.

You are trying to say that the film doesn't show what it shows, and what the description says it shows. Yet in several instances we can see men being shot in the water. You say splashes that "resemble" bullets. C'mon. What else can they be? That has to be denial. What about the scene where a japanese sailor got shot at point blank at the side of the sub?

The film documents what the film documents. That is what I'm saying. You're saying it may be documenting a leisurely day at sea, the men may be shooting at fish, the bullet splashes may be something else, the men in the water may be going for swim, the sailors shooting hand guns into the water may be just practicing, and the guy who gets shots in the head may have been, I don't know - a mannequin, and on and on. You're saying there is no proof that any massacre took place in this footage. That is denial.

I don't now why you insist on suggesting the film is possibly not what it is considering that preventing Japanese sailors from approaching by shooting at them was in fact policy.

You make a great point!.... thanks :)... thsats why i love this forum... so many different points of view:yeah: