[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@Kissaki
Again, about surrendering. I do mean to imply that soldiers that go to war for their country should not want quarter. If it is not requested it does not, in my mind, need to be offered. I will say that it is more noble to fight to the death, but take prisoners, but I do not see it as ignoble to apply the same standards to both sides. Ergo, if the "red flag" of no quarter asked/none given is raised and known to both sides - another key factor. Than neither side can, or should, expect any mercy. So I guess that would be my biggest stipulation then? As long as ROE and consistent and the enemy knows, I see them as fair.

I think I'm beginning to see your point. However, it's every man's prerogative to decide that he can't take any more. Also bear in mind that in a war you have draftees as well, who don't necessarily want to be there at all. In any case, I don't believe in "no quarter" warfare, and neither did Rommel as you know. He entitled his memoirs "Krieg ohne Hass", or "War without Hate". Rommel is my personal favourite too, because he was truly an amazing military man. He was never more than tolerant toward Nazi ideology, though he did idolize Hitler at first. The reason for that, however, is because Hitler promised martial glory - and that's what Rommel lived for. He did love the war, and in a similar way he loved his enemy. He lauded martial valour, though he lamented the losses. He loved his men, but his final comment to Major General Johannes Streich, as he sent him home from the Afrikakorps was, "You cared about your men too much". I suppose you can draw many parallells to Patton.

Anyway, a no quarter struggle will only leave bitterness and resentment in the aftermath of the war. Evil begets evil, as evident in how the Russian theatre developed.

@Kissaki
The unspoken agreement, was a metaphor, there were instances of Japanese putting grenades under their armpits when surrendering only to drop them at the feet of their captors. A book you would be interested in is Deadly Brotherhood, it's a wealth of interviews with US WWII veterans. In which they talk about the fact many US units would should Japenese soldiers without 2nd thought.

Which is understandable, based on the ferocious reputation of the Japanese. There was a lot of propaganda which added to this image, just as the Japanese were fed propaganda to make them despise Americans. It was hate and fear that made them kill. The Pacific theatre is another fine example of how evil begets evil.

@Kissaki
You neversaid thatmost European countries were Nazi's, you said they weren't which I argue. Poland, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, and a few others willingly capitulated with the Nazi regime. Infact, I forget the names of the ships, but I do believe that two French destroyers were sunk of the coast of Normandy by British ships in/around 1940.

Willingly capitulated? Now, them's fightin' words! I assure you that we didn't capitulate until we had no other choice, when thousands of Norwegian and British soldiers had been killed, plus a few thousand foreign legioneers as well. Norway presented Germany with her first defeats, as the Battle of Narvik testifies. Nor did Poland, France or the Low Countries willingly capitulate. They - and we - were defeated and subdued. Or are you saying that anything less than fighting to the last man, woman or child is a willing surrender?

True, Quisling did sell us out by personally inviting Hitler to annex Norway and in preparation downgrading our military to next to nothing. Plus ordering the remaining soldiers to stand down to the Wehrmacht - under no circumstances were they to offer resistance. Still, they fought - we fought - tooth and nail. There was nothing willing about the occupation, but rather making the best out of a bad situation. Throughout the war the resistance remained active, and most of us fought in the way we could - by wearing red to symbolize good, old independent Norway, and to show that they had not broken our spirit, by tuning in to English radio, by not trading with the Germans etc. And the Germans never got the King.

Compared with Poland, though, the other countries you mentioned had a swell time. To say that they willingly surrendered, I would think particularly offensive. Now, Austria you could make a case for, and Denmark as well. But the others you mention, not on your life.

@Kassaki
The Holocaust was only part of what people accuse the Nazi's of. If that's the bulk of their crimes, than only a minority of the Nazi's actually took part.

Yes, but my point was that even if only a minority took part of it, all of Germany has been blamed for it. I don't remember who said it, but it went something like this: The only thing needed for bad men to succeed is for good men to do nothing. That's why after the war many people hated all Germans for the Holocaust, the very symbol of the Nazi regime. A few bitter people might do so still.

Either way such is my point - but when you look at their "crimes" in field many were reprisals. Which are, quite, justified regardless of their severity. If a village harbors combatants whether regulars or militia, they have committed an act of war and are thus, armed or not, are valid military targets.

Actually, the Geneva convention decides what are and what are not valid military targets. It's a matter of definition, and that definition lies squarely in the Geneva convention - regardless of what individual people might feel.

Besides, what if armed men force unarmed civilians to hide them, as is often the case? Have the unwilling civilians then committed an act of war? What about the infant children of said civilians, who probably don't even know? Have they committed an act of war? Nothing is black and white, but there is one thing that is frowned upon by any ethical standards I'm aware of: taking the lives of unarmed civilians in cold blood.

Also: As Kissaki mentioned the camps built early in the war were not part of the Holocaust, the Holocaust began much later and only applies to what happend to the Jews after Allied nations refused to accept any more deported refugees. Perhaps history books don't bother to mention that because certain nations have a sense of guilt? Have you seen Shindler's List? Perhaps at the end of the war the Allies realized they had let those millions die.

This is an important point, and very true. Allied countries had the opportunity to take in a lot more Jews than they did. But they refused to, just like the same countries hate taking on hordes of refugees today. There is enough responsibility for the Holocaust to go around to Great Britain, USA and others as well, even if most of it must rest on the Nazies. But many Allied nations could've taken on so many more than they did, and they had no good excuse not to.

You realize that the Grossdeutschland had just as many politicaly influenced members and was, aside from name, practically an SS unit correct? Also that the paratroopers and Afrika Korp were lead by Nazi's and the only difference between them and the SS was that they had soldiers with braun heair and eyes correct?

The Afrikakorps was led by Erwin Rommel, and Rommel was no Nazi.

Also, Churchill helped walk down to the darkages, I again cite Eugenics that he actively supported the chemical castration of mentally handicaped as did FDR - the Nazi's infact learned their first methods of sterilization from the British and U.S.

That's right, forced sterilization was not peculiar to the Nazies, and I do believe some countries continued the practice until the '60s. But don't quote me on that.

When you surrender, you give up fighting and throw yourself at your enemies feet. There is nothing stopping them from kicking you and by putting yourself in that position you are only a dog, not a man. Frankly I would die before I knelt before any man.

Brave words, easily said. I'm not saying that you would waver from your principles when push comes to shove, but I am saying that no one knows how one would react in certain situations - until they are in that situation. Even the bravest man might succumb to panic in a pinch. Furthermore, I can think of no animal more loyal, devoted and brave than the dog.

@Abraham
Actually, honor applies to acting in a fashion you would not normally act in the for the sake of country. Honor, is keeping your word, as a soldier, that means not questioning orders. You sacrifice yourself for the whole. You do not debate with your commanding officer whether it is right.

On this I do agree. To do one's duty, even if it is extremely unpleasant and traumatizing, can be seen as honourable. However, then it is also a matter of perspective. Which is more important? One's duty as a soldier, or one's duty to one's beliefs? From a military point of view, one's duty as a soldier should come first. From a humanitarian point of view, though, one's beliefs should come first. If one might call a dutiful soldier a coward because he's afraid to stand up for his beliefs, then one might also call a dutiful humanitarian a coward because he's afraid to do his duty as a soldier. Ultimately, only the soldier/humanitarian in question knows whether he's being true to his principles.

Thus making them innocent, if a soldier enters the field of battle he has actively decided to take up arms - and is not innocent. If a peasant village hides local partisans they actively decide to risk retribution - and are not innocent. Do you see the difference between active and passive? It is dishonorable in my eyes to kill someone that has not yet had the choice. But if they are given the choice and choose to risk death, they have no right to complain when they die.

Here is where I cannot agree. What if a soldier did not have a choice? What if by refusing to take up arms, he risks not only his own life but his family's lives as well? You may argue that he should be true to his principles and die rather than take up arms for a cause he doesn't believe in (to which I disagree, because you can't expect everyone to have such an unbreakable iron will), but does he have the right to risk the lives of his family for his beliefs? If by taking up arms, he is saving his family, does that make him guilty? Most likely he is not personally going to kill anyone, even if given ample opportunity.

Or, what if one is taking up arms to defend against an invading horde? If one has the choice between kill or be killed? Does one still have no right to complain? Poland, Norway, France... we didn't ask to be invaded, it wasn't our choice.

And as for the civilians harbouring military equipment/personell... who said they have a choice? Look to the Vietcong for some prime examples of civilians being forced between a rock and a hard place.

@Kissaki
Schlecht = bad
It's irrelevant but I understand (and speak a limited amount) of high German and can understand almost all German dialects excepting Swebish... *shudder* they don't enunciate or seem to breathe when they talk... good for a lager though... I prefer darker beer, but eh.
**Edit: Now looking at the fact you ask: Was ist schlecht? - and your nationality is listed as Norweigan I'm going to assume you knew that.... Es tut mir leid, ich bin American aber ich glaube im deutsch sehr oft.
(I think that's proper, bear in mind I read and listen to more German than I have oppurtuninty to speak, I know several German immigrants that speak partial English and are kind enough to tolerate my lack of a German vocabulary, though they tell me that what I do know I speak very well.)

Ja, ich weiss, dass mein Deutsch schlecht ist, doch weiss ich aber was "schlecht" bedeutet. I just didn't know exactly what was schlecht. :P