Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 228

German POWs after WW2 - did the allies commit mass murder?


Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #121
Top Five German Aces of WWII.[/b]

Yes, that what I meant!

The best were busy in the East from 1941 onwards.
But then it was GB which declared war on Germany...
But Hitler never cranked up the pressure on GB more than he had to! He shifted everything to the East instead.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #122
Dawid,
youtube.com/watch?v=OnUWcjXvdlo&feature=related
please comment on Hersh's allegations. Al Qaeda being used to help out against Iran, LOL.
Dawid  
9 Nov 2008 /  #123
I had to look up Hersh, and it seems he is a very respectable investigative journalist who won a Pullitzer prize.

If I understand 100%, he says that US was giving money to Lebanon (this was in 2005) which was in turn providing support for Sunni groups who oppose Hezbolah. As everybody knows Hezbolah is funded by Iran, therefore this could be interpreted as a battle of US against Iran fought indirectly through proxy groups. As he says, "This is really nutty, because these people are not controllable," which is probably right.

Question is what kind of aid is US giving to Lebanon. US gives foreign aid to Lebanon of course. So assuming the allegation is true, he must still explain whether Lebanon abuses this money, or if US provides such money knowing who is the end-user. I am sure that US could not knowingly give money to a declared terrorist group, this is political suicide for any politician to consider.

One thing to put such allegation into context, is that Iran has been fighting this way through proxy groups for years. Hezbolah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Qods forces. This has allowed the Mullahs to play both sides in Iraq. On one hand they can officially be working on diplomatic solutions and look like good guys, while on other hand they can be destabilizing the government with such groups and have plausible deniability for their actions. Iran is master at this game.

So if this allegation is true, I would see US move as intended for countering Iran by playing same game. Only they don't stand a chance to win against Iran.

In the big picture, Iran came out as the winner after the fall of Saddam. Iran is consolidating its regional influence with strong links between Shi'ite groups. This makes all neighbouring Sunni countries very nervous, for example Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Jordan. Saudi Wahabist probably most nervous of all. I would imagine that Saudis are funding these groups much more than US. For Saudis, they probably pressure US to continue occupation to avoid the whole country falling to Iranian influence.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #124
And here is the big Saudi connection. They feel strong with American backing. U r right. They will happily punt off their oil in exchange for security guarantees. However, Hezbollah cannot be seen in too negative a light. They are a reactionary group, responding to Israeli atrocities. I'm with Scott Ritter on this one, he defends the cause of normal Israelis but recognises that politics have legitimised the cause of Hezbollah somewhat.

I think we can expect a major event b4 2 long, one involving Israel.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #125
In the big picture, Iran came out as the winner after the fall of Saddam

Wasn't Saddam their arch enemy? They surely are grateful to the US for removing him now....

I think we can expect a major event b4 2 long, one involving Israel.

I think the pendulum is about to swing big too...but I still hope in the right direction (starting a real peace process in the ME)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #126
A real peace process, I almost choked on my imaginary peanut.
Dawid  
9 Nov 2008 /  #127
But Hitler never cranked up the pressure on GB more than he had to! He shifted everything to the East instead.

This may have been true of early diplomatic efforts, but after Hitler realized the British were not going to be his Anglo-Saxon Aryan brothers, he played to win. Here are the numbers:

German Luftwaffe had 1.290 fighters in 1940, of which 1.107 were committed to Battle of Britain.
German Luftwaffe had 1.558 bombers in 1940, of which 1.380 were commited to Battle of Britain.
Similar percentages of other planes (dive-bombers, recon-planes) committed to Battle of Britain.

Overall, Germany committed nearly 90% of Luftwaffe for Battle of Britain. In other words, Hitler threw everything he had at Churchill. Unfortunately for him, it did not work. But it was not for lack of trying.

To suggest that Hitler played with kiddy-gloves is demeaning to the sacrifices of all the British, Polish, and yes German pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain.

Moreover, it was Göring's incompetence and the bravery of the small boat captains that led to the mostly successful British evacuation at Dunkirk, not Hitler's lack of resolve to wipe out the British. Also Hitler only shifted his divisions primarily to the Ostfront after it became clear that Sealion was no longer feasible.

And remember, for the rest of the war, Hitler launched V-1 and V-2s at the British as fast as he could produce them. These were of no strategic value, but Hitler prefered to launch them at London instead of Moscow. He was not happy with his loss.

Shall we also talk of Hitler's not trying to win against the British in North Africa, Italy, and France?
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #128
To suggest that Hitler played with kiddy-gloves is demeaning to the sacrifices of all the British, Polish, and yes German pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain.

But it's the truth!
Hitler somehow had a soft spot for the Brits...he wasn't happy as they declared war on him.
And the battle in Russia saved your arse...a bit more gratefulness to comrade Stalin please!

Shall we also talk of Hitler's not trying to win against the British in North Africa, Italy, and France?

Hmmm....I thought Italy was an ally (albeit a horrible one) and the battle for France...well....Blitzkrieg as his finest.

Overall, Germany committed nearly 90% of Luftwaffe for Battle of Britain. In other words, Hitler threw everything he had at Churchill. Unfortunately for him, it did not work. But it was not for lack of trying.

How can that be when most of our aces never met with the RAF!
OP masks98 27 | 289  
9 Nov 2008 /  #129
I don't get how your personal experience as an american prisoner of war discredits the possible war crimes committed by the allies themselves in post-war germany...

Whatever the "allies" did was still far better than Gerries deserved.....The only problem could be unfair redistribution of punishment among Gerries.

That's the problem I' asking about. I wouldn't gamble my money on the truth of these accusations, but while real criminals were living their own destinies, average germans soldiers that became prisoners of war might have suffered inhumane cruelties under the allies' watch while average german civilians died off from starvation policies pursued by Eisenhower for example.

Then there are other crimes that might not have been official policy but are frightening to think about nevertheless. Such as the mass rape of german women by the soviets and the allies.
Franek 8 | 271  
9 Nov 2008 /  #130
Down BB sit.. Quit while you are still making some sense.

It seems like Dawit did his homework.. He knows what he is talking about.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #131
He knows what he is talking about.

And what would that be? :)

Most of our Luftwaffe was busy in the East.
If Hitler had handled GB as he did with France and Poland they wouldn't had known what hit them.
Nobody in the High Command understood Hitler, he started to
become irrational at this point already...
Only the distraction of the epic battle with Russia and later the americans saved them....please try to deny that!

Dawid had it right though, most of our best and most successful never once met with the RAF, because they were busy elsewhere...
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #132
Word has it that they ducked the challenge due to fear. Goring knew he was up against a formidable force and piped down.
Franek 8 | 271  
9 Nov 2008 /  #133
No I cant deny that. There is truth into what you both say.. It is well documented in history. When Hitler turned to Barbarossa. It was all over.. He miscalculated and paid the price.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #134
Word has it that they ducked the challenge due to fear. Goring knew he was up against a formidable force and piped down.

After Dunkirk???
I really, really, doubt that! :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #135
A slip can be afforded every now and again. Morale was not as high as it had been and spirits were flagging.
Dawid  
9 Nov 2008 /  #136
How can that be when most of our aces never met with the RAF!

Please consult a timeline of WWII. Maybe someone could post a graphic illustration for Bratwurst Boy?

Battle of Britain occured from July to October 1940.

Hitler invaded Russia starting in June 1941.

The only country Hitler was fighting at time of Battle of Britain was England. He could afford to use everything he had against them. He was not fighting Russians at this point, he was still abiding to terms of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

After Hitler did not achieve air superiority, and could therefore not guarantee security for his landing craft, thus making the invasion unfeasible, Hitler gave up. Massive Luftwaffe sorties over England stopped. Hitler moved most of his air force to the east.

During this interim time, many new pilots became active in the Luftwaffe, who would go on to become Germany's top aces. It was too late to tangle with RAF now. The only chance Germans had to fight RAF was with night fighters against English bombers.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #137
A slip can be afforded every now and again. Morale was not as high as it had been and spirits were flagging.

Of course!
But on the other hand the german forces felt quite invincible afte just having stormed over most of Europe....

Battle of Britain occured from July to October 1940.

Hitler invaded Russia starting in June 1941.

Yes, but you seem to think the war with GB ended in 41.
There were 4 more years to go...the most decisive and brutal at that.
You think with the so called "Battle of Britain" you won all by yourself against the whole third Reich at their high point of their power...

Problem is the third Reich (Hitler) was at that point not as interested in GB, as they probably should have. It was an error!

Watch the real battle fields across Europe if you want to know what GB would have faced if Hitler had put GB on his list on top....

So please, a bit more reality would do you good...

Hitler gave up.

Why do you think he "gave up" GB but not Russia as the situation there became much more critical and desastrous and costly and later really endangering the Reich?

He just didn't care as much for GB as for Russia...never had!
In this case it was always the Brits wanting the war...
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #138
Well, Dawid kinda put paid to that idea above. We mobilised our units very quickly and repelled a number of attacks. The surge of invincibility petered out when resistance was stronger than expected.
Filios1 8 | 1,336  
9 Nov 2008 /  #139
Bratwurst Boy, the more I read your posts, the more I am absoulately disgusted with how proud you are of Germany's WW2 war record. You are glorifying mass murder, even if you deny it. You use the Luftwaffe example as a distraction and cover up to venerate the Nazi's and how 'succesful' they were in the wars early years. You are one sick man, you know that? Most reasonable people already 'get it' that no one side was completely innocent and chivalric. The fact that you keep throwing it in peoples faces only seems to be a testament to your unwanning desire to go back and participate in your countries expansion.

You want to know why most of your beloved German aces were so succesful? As you mentioned, most of them never got a chance to fight in the Battle of Britain, and if they had, they would have gotten their asses handed to them by allies flying Spitfires and Hurricanes. Most of their kills were against obselete Polish, French and Russian aircraft. Most of which were probably still parked on the tarmac! How glorious! And the glorious Luftwaffe actually lost more planes in the Polish campaign than the Poles themselves! How pathetic! Bf-109's getting shot out of the sky by PZL-P.11's, a plane which was more suited for early 1930's combat... I believe the totals were something like 181 German planes lost to 120 Polish planes. Good thing Poland only had a few hundred planes, eh!

You have been on this thread for almost 3 straight days now, becoming more and more defensive and antagonistic. Get some help man... preferably as soon as you can.
Franek 8 | 271  
9 Nov 2008 /  #140
Today, 18:50 Report #138

Well, Dawid kinda put paid to that idea above. We mobilised our units very quickly and repelled a number of attacks. The surge of invincibility petered out when resistance was stronger than expected.

What rot Seanus. It is true, the Brits defended England in the Air. But they were humiliated at Dunkirk and Dieppe.
Hitler screwed up too.. He could have destroyed England if he would have followed up at Dunkirk.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #141
*sniff*

Says the one who thinks the Axis forum is a Neo-Nazi board....to much Ouzo today already??? :)

You are glorifying mass murder,

I do? Which one?

even if you deny it.

Erm...how horrible of me!

You want to know why most of your beloved German aces were so succesful?

Oh I know it and you can read about it here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_air_aces

Good thing Poland only had a few hundred planes, eh!

Better, they could even borrow some from other countries...

Get some help man...

Thanks but don't need any...I have my facts down!
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #142
Humiliations happen in war Franek. A triumph for their superior planning on that one but the bigger picture looked very different. He could have destroyed England? Well, he screwed up too, funny that :)

Hindsight is 20/20 but don't over speculate. U can't tell me u were in Dunkirk too. Or r u just reading the various accounts that everyone else gets?
Dawid  
9 Nov 2008 /  #143
Although the brutal struggle between England and Germany lasted through May 1945, after the Battle of Britain, Germany could no longer pose a strategic threat to invade the British Isles.

The German military was better suited to fight a continental war, not fight a massive amphibious invasion. It doesn't matter how many divisions Hitler had, they were all useless if he could not get them across the channel, since British maintained air and naval superiority. Hitler knew this, and switched his interests accordingly.

Historians speculate that even if Germany had won Battle of Britain, they didn't stand a strong chance of successfully invading England. The German landing craft were too few, crude, small, and in no way comparable to allied landing craft used during Operation Overlord in 1944.

If the German divisions were able to get to England, I don't think anyone would dispute that England would have fallen in 1940. But England was once again saved by the channel.

On the contrary, I think Stalin owes a much bigger debt of gratitude toward England and America for relieving some pressure of Germans. Strategic bombing forced Hitler to leave many fighter squadrons in France and Germany that could have been used in Eastern Front, and tie up ca 1 000 000 men in air defense. Threat of seaborne invasion forced Germans to commit about 25% of their overall manpower to the Atlantic Wall. Landings at North Africa and Italy forced Germans to divert further troops. And with lendlease, the US delivered tens of thousands of trucks, tanks, airplanes, and other material aid to Russia, which was later conveniently written out of Russian history books. Stalin was constantly pressuring Roosevelt and Churchill to help him, not the other way around.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #144
Hitler screwed up too.. He could have destroyed England if he would have followed up at Dunkirk.

He wasn't a rational being at this point anymore...(if he ever was that is)!

Historians speculate

That's all what it is Dawid, specualations.
There are strong points that Hitler never would had gone forward with a real
invasion of the islands...chasing them off the continent was enough.
Some even say that in NOT annihilating the british expedition corps at Dunkirk was
some kind of a peace offer...
(Don't forget we are talking here about a mental challenged man)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #145
Rational or not, he had his instinct to destroy intact. He could have at least listened to his senior officers there. Even amateur chess players can exploit vulnerabilities.
Bratwurst Boy 12 | 10,937  
9 Nov 2008 /  #146
He could have at least listened to his senior officers there

How said the Brits? "Hitler is our biggest helper"? Or something like that...
Franek 8 | 271  
9 Nov 2008 /  #147
Hindsight is 20/20 but don't over speculate. U can't tell me u were in Dunkirk too. Or r u just reading the various accounts that everyone else gets?

No Seanus. I was but 15 yrs old at the time of Dunkirk. I entered the service in 1944 when I was drafted. Although I do not have the education that you do, I can still read books about that battle. You seem to get all of your expertise from books and your imagination. ( OUCH )
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
9 Nov 2008 /  #149
What BB, r u pulling a Hitler b4 ur time? ;)

Sorry Sir, I wasn't born in ur time and I'm definitely not any kind of authority on WWII. I'm not much of a reader these days. I just drift along with what I think I know.

I put my imagination 2 better use elsewhere
Filios1 8 | 1,336  
9 Nov 2008 /  #150
Oh I know it and you can read about it here

Like I said... if you go through the list, compare how many Eastern Front victories these aces of yours had, to victories against a better allied airforce like the RAF. Certainly not as great as you make them out to be...

Like this man for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Grislawski

Grislawski was officially credited with shooting down 132 enemy aircraft, including 18 USAAF four-engined bombers in more than 800 combat missions. The majority of his kills were claimed on the Eastern front.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / German POWs after WW2 - did the allies commit mass murder?Archived