"The Allies Mistreated Captured German Soldiers..." Topic

…When WW2 Ended.

"Most Western historical literature says the real villains were Stalin's Red Army soldiers who brutalised captured Wehrmacht prisoners, killed outright men from the Waffen SS (After torturing them of course) and what not. The fact is the American, British and Free French armies were no less culpable.

And the savage mentality started from the very top. At the Teheran Conference of the "Big Three" in 1943, Stalin at a dinner on the second day, suggested a toast to eliminating 50,000 men from the German staff. Churchill was against at this. Roosevelt, in a humorous tone, suggested killing 49,000 men. His son Elliott chipped in by saying that when the Red Army, American and British rolled into Germany, they would not only wipe out top German soldiers but also thousands of Nazis. The most humane of all, Churchill walked out of the room in anger.

Now if the top leaders harbored such vengeful feelings towards the Germans, such a message that "kill Germans and get away with it" was bound to percolate down to lowest levels of the Allied armies. The Geneva Conventions of 1929 which protected disarmed soldiers were thrown out of the window by all, including the "virtuous" allies…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Very informative and well documented. I remember reading that at the end of WWII, US Coast Guard bomber pilots would tie German prisoners to their F-14 Tomcat aircraft and drag them along the ground at take-off. A lot of German POWs also died as a result of testing of Norton anti-virus agents. Many more died when overcome by the Dance Fever and Saturday Night Fever outbreaks. "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees was written specifically to honor their memory.

oh please stop this carp.

Who cares?

I saw a book advertised on "Amazon", I think, on the subject of Western Allies killing off large numbers of German prisoners post war. With millions of prisoners conditions had to be rough before they got better. As to wholesale slaughter of prisoners that is just more revisionist nonsense used to sell a book. People in this country are so ill-educated they are apt to believe anything. After all

Rule 303? (Or as the Aussies were wont to say 'Too late, mate!')

Glad you got my post followers up, my friends. (smile)

Did axis prisoners die in allied custody? Of course.
Were there examples of murder and rape committed by members of the Western Armed forces? Of course.

Is this article the biggest load of bullhockey since "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" yes.

Sorry Armand I usually just disregard stuf you post that I disagree with but this one. It's the worst sort of revisionist lies and don't think you should have posted it.

Fatman

After reading the article, it seems to contain little I haven't read in mainstream books (not to say they are settled facts), and the gist is; Western allies were unsympathetic to the rough treatment of German prisoners, on occasion they were shot, the Soviets shot a lot of Germans and mistreated those they did take.
I don't think anyone who reads much history believes the allies were always saints at every turn, and the soviets were a totalitarian regime which didn't even treat its own people well. Its not really revisionism in that sense.
But the problem with the article is it seems to live in a world without the context of the brutal aggressive war the Germans started, and the war of annihilation and starvation they tried on the Russians. I'm not saying that justifies revenge (or that it doesn't; that's a complex question) but given what the Germans unleashed on the world you could argue they got off relatively lightly in defeat. Not that you would see any of that from that website.

I've just finished Shirer's "Rise and fall of the Third Reich", and I don't have a lot of patience for "Axis and Allies were as bad as each other" just now.

Since the author provides no footnotes or sources, why would anyone believe him?

"I don't think anyone who reads much history believes the allies were always saints at every turn, and the soviets were a totalitarian regime which didn't even treat its own people well."
That's badly phrased. What I meant was;
I don't think anyone who reads much history believes the allies were always saints at every turn,. The soviets were a totalitarian regime which didn't even treat its own people well. Its not really revisionism in that sense.

I guess the site is aimed at people who care not for footnotes; "I read it on a history website, of course its true".

Any website with article titles like these:

"THE 1945 EVENT THAT THE ALLIES BURIED: Forced Return Of Russians and Cossacks To The Red Army By The Allies"

"WW2 Was For Colonies: Were The Germans Much Different Than The Allies?"

"INGLORIOUS ALLIES DURING WW2: Terror Bombing German Cities"

is not going to be real high on the list of believable sources. The fact there are no footnotes or sources is just icing on the cake.

Not a single number and the guy pretends to be taken seriously? If you make a claim, you need to support it with data. Two anecdotical evidences, from biased sources, are not enough.

This was another one at this site:
Inglorious American Soldiers: MASSACRE AT LIPPACH
link
Lots of others in a similar vein.

I tried to at least find a wiki mention and found this:
link

Stumbling across this small page, I gave it a once over and tried to confirm one of the events named 'Massacre of Lippach'. Some searching failed to yield any reputable sources beyond a small Newspaper in German, Facebook postings, and a Stormfront posting. As such, it does not appear to meet the guidelines for a reputable, cited source--rather another possible point of propaganda against the allies in WW2.

from biased sources,

Pretty much the norm/standard on the net, in the media, and just about anywhere else. Everybody is entitled to an opinion … But everybody does not have to agree with it. Or vis versa … nothing new really.

Read about the "skullduggery" going on with the first few POTUSs after the AWI or War of 1812 or ACW, etc., etc., etc. And it's just not there … it's everywhere. E.g. talk to anyone who watched the recent Super Bowl …

The Allies always loved to claim they were in the right during the war. The only reason they call the Axis evil was because they raped civilians in the war.
The Allies were just as bad, and in some ways worse. Germany and Japan didn't drop an atomic bomb on anyone, they fought them soldier to soldier in the normal way.

They didn't drop A bombs only because they didn't have them. And some may disagree. however, the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan in the long and short run. Did save many, many lives on both sides. Especially as the Japanese were going to fight to the last man, woman and child if their mainland islands were invaded. The Allies saw that behavior thru out the PTO/CBI. Sadly the "math" comes down to as it does many times in conflicts. Kill or lose a 1000 today to save 10,000 tomorrow.

The Allies[which would be mostly US] estimated they'd lose @ 1 Million + to secure most of mainland Japan/end the war in the PTO. If the Japanese were so concerned about losing so much blood & treasure, they should not had bombed Pearl Harbor, invaded Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, the PI, etc., etc.

I very much agree with the US decision to drop those 2 A-Bombs. Again, sadly it comes down to the age old "Us or Them" paradigm, IMO.

No one dropped any A-bombs on Nazi Germany. As we all know. However a lot of HE, Incendiary, etc. were dropped on both the Germans and Japanese. Causing massive amounts of losses in lives, infrastructure, etc., etc. Again a very sad side effect of going to war …

Of course this is just my opinion …

Germany and Japan fought soldier to soldier in the normal way? Seriously? Not according to 1 of my teachers who was bent double due to the way the Japanese treated him as a prisoner of war. Nor the European civilians who ended up as slave labour or in concentration camps. As Sir Arthur Harris said at the time, they sowed the wind they shall reap the whirlwind.

Actually, Japan was EXTREMELY lucky to have the US drop 2 atomic bombs on them. It allowed the Japanese to extricate themselves from the nightmare that they created for the world and for themselves.

An unknown is just how generous the world would have been to them in post-war rebuilding and beyond if forced to go building to building, room to room to force them to unconditional surrender.

Haitiansoldier – In what alternate universe could any sane person say the allies were just as bad as the axis? We called them evil because they were. The western allies were fighting the most evil organisation in the recent past. The Russians were possibly just as bad, but to the west it was a case of "my enemies enemy is my friend" The western allies had occasional lapses of discipline, but they weren't setting out to exterminate entire races of people or enslave as much of the world as they could.
But I think you know all this anyway.

Sucks to lose

My step father, Donald B. Norville, fought in WW-II. He was drafted and went through training in George. As the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge was ending. Donnie's division was sent in to start pushing the Germans back. Donnie really didn't talk much about the war until he was in his early 60's. He started having nightmares and was diagnosed with PTSD. His Doctor prescribed him something to help him sleep and told him he needed to talk to someone about his nightmares. By this time I was an adult and had served in the military. Donnie decided he could trust me and talked to me about his nightmares. When Donnie's unit arrived on the front line, they heard how the German's had been executing American POW's. He didn't know details until after the war, but it was clear from their NCO's and Officers they were not going to take German's prisoner. Donnie had no problems discussing about engagements and having to shoot the enemy. All the problems he was having was when they captured German's who surrendered. Two or three American soldiers would be told to take the German's back to HQ by an NCO or Officer. But then they'd be told hurry it up and they had ten or fifteen minutes to get back. Donnie said most of the time their HQ would be a 30 minute to an hour walk back behind the lines. So they all knew what to do, take them off a bit and shoot them. Donnie said after a few times of this happening he couldn't do it any more. While on patrol they came across a German who surrendered to them. Donnie walked up to the guy and they made eye contact. Donnie said he just couldn't do it. The German soldier had his hands up. Donnie said his Sergeant came walking up and told Donnie to "pop" him or "drop" him. Donnie said he looked at the Sergeant and looked back at the German. The German was looking back and forth at them. Donnie said he told the Sergeant, his gun jammed he couldn't. The Sergeant told Donnie he better get with it. Donnie said he just stared at the Sergeant. During this the German dropped his arms, looked down at the ground and was mumbling something in German. Donnie said he thought he was praying? The Sergeant then stepped up and shot the German in the head. He then told Donnie to take the lead and they continued the patrol. Donnie said over the years he was able to put it in the past. But he said now that he was older, it was starting to weigh on him. Donnie said he didn't consider himself a bad person, it was war. Plus the German's had executed American POW's. So when people get all holier than thou and claim Americans didn't execute POW's. I have a hard time telling them 1. you've never been in their situation to know one way or the other if they did or didn't and 2. WE did and we have.

Mistreated German soldiers?

The Allies forced repatriation on Eastern European civilian refugees that they knew the Soviets were going to execute or send to camps.

Then there were the anti-Commnist/anti-Axis guerillas from Yugoslavia who were forced back into Yugoslavia after crossing into Italy or Austria who were rounded up and massacred after being 'repatriated.'

I really doubt that there was more concern for and better treatment of German POWs than civilians.

At least with Hiroshima and Nagasaki American GIs weren't given a quota of civilians to kill in the fashion that the Mongols handled their version of wiping out a city to discourage resistance by the rest.

Technology to the rescue…

I love the internet. Any lies can look authorised.

1) There are fundamental differences between the nazi regime, Japan the USSR and the Western allies. Genocide and the murder of "inferior" peoples was official policy, the nazis also considered much of the things they did as "wiedergutmachung" for all the slights they had been made to endure (in short, once you're big and strong and immune from the consequences you can break the nose of every person who you think looked at you sideways in the past be it true or not) Japan was being mostly racist, they figured that anyone who wasn't Japanese didn't deserve a decent treatment. Just look at how the Japanese treated their own soldiers to see how easy it would be to be nasty to somebody else. The Russians were just as racist as the rest, given that they had lost several million people in the fight it was clear that the people in charge would turn a blind eye to all but the worst if only to make up for all the bad things the Germans did in Russia. On the other hand had the Soviets been as genocidal as the Germans, large parts of Germany would be nature preserves today so at least they retained some humanity … The Western allies, they were just as angry, prejudiced and racist as everyone else back in those days. The only difference is that they did frown upon murdering prisoners, raping civilians etc.

The point is that the nazis raised the stakes and they had to eat a lot of for that. I'd say that the Russians, who were hardly angels in the end could have been much worse, so maybe there was still some measure of humanity left after 1945. The Japanese appropriated themselves the mantle of "colonial oppressed" and tried to sell brutality as simply giving back in kind what the colonial oppressors had done for centuries, except that the Japanese planned to be colonial oppressors in their own right so hypocrisy much ? The Allies compromised, they made their beds with the likes of Stalin because Hitler was the worst of two evils. Hitler if given a choice would rather murder you and have replaced by a nice aryan blue-haired kid with blonde eyes, Stalin at worst would try to make you into a communist puppet.

2) The Germans nurtured a sense of supremacy which was translated by some as a free pass to do as they wish, including doing the worst possible. The end result was a series of terrible acts like genocide, war crimes, allowing unsavory types to try out stuff any sane government would lock them up for etc. Stalin was an ice cold pragmatic psychopath who used murder like others use voting as a political tool. He had thirty years to murder millions of undesirables. Hitler had to deal with a major war before he could even get round to doing all the murdering he had planned for. The only difference is that Hitler was moving past reason, Stalin was pragmatic, you could make a deal with him. That's the major difference. When it comes to doing bad things the Allies had to find ways to fight the war in a period where they were mostly confined to the side-shows or still building up their strength. The bombing campaign was one attempt to hurt Germany using one of the very few methods available at the time. The goal was to defeat Germany by crippling the industry, the infrastructure and along the way somebody figured that dropping bombs on the civilians might encourage them to rise up against Hitler and topple him. Because the Blitz had no such effect on the British, it was 100% likely to happen to those inferior German block heads, right ? Right ? Bueller ? The problem is even if you didn't try to bomb the civilians on purpose the methods and technology just didn't work, heck we're almost a century later and we still have to find a bombing expert who isn't lying. Civilians did end up in the firing line.

And this is where people with certain political motives are so keen to jump in with cries of conspiracy and cover-ups because the victory of nazi Germany could only be done by morally unimpeacheable people who never did a thing wrong because for some really nebulous reason, bombing a German city is a billion times worse than say, planning the genocide of an entire people …

3) The bottom line is that bad things happened. People misbehave in terrible ways even in the best of times, let alone in the worst. The difference is that the Western Allies nominally frowned up such things, whereas you were suspect if you didn't do them under other regimes. The revisionist attempts to rehabilitate the nazis because somehow the allied crimes are far worse because of some strange synergy about them being "the good guys" is morally reprehensible and the less we talk about these schmucks and their s****-stained posters of the nazi leadership the better …

Thank you Patrick, you put it much better than I did.

Some very good comments posted here. Something that we see and it is very prevalent on the net, in the media, etc. Is what some call "revisionist history", etc. Sometimes as time goes by new information/evidence is found about the past comes to light and may change the "given" accepted history. Which is some cases may be inaccurate, etc., … either way.

Regardless, in the current era of "P.C.-ness", etc. Many obvious "truths" are clear. Yet to some revisionist, P.C. SJW, etc. types, what was once clear is very "muddied". Again … Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in many cases not their own "facts". Which in all cases are generally colored by individual biases, etc., at times …

I'd think to anyone with comment sense(?), etc. would see the war against the Nazis, fascists, imperialists of the Axis of WWII was a "good" thing. The "right thing" to do …

And even then the Allies made a "deal with the devil" to be allied with the Stalin's USSR. Which ended fairly rapidly after the end of WWII. And with the fall of the "iron curtain" … with the start of the Cold War. And "proxy" wars all over the globe, e.g. Korea, Vietnam, etc. And so it appears to continue to this day with no real end in sight.

Well said mate.

Ironwolf – Thank you for your posting. It reveals a truth that not many want to acknowledge (I notice that this discussion has flowed around your posting like pedestrians ignoring a beggar on a sidewalk). If your father is still with us I hope he has found some peace.

I think some of the worst wounds of war may be to the spirit. I knew a veteran of Korea who, forty some years after the event, was deeply troubled by his killing an enemy soldier (blew the man's head off with his rifle after surprising him). My friend said he felt he needed to ask forgiveness from the man he killed, but of course couldn't. My friend had no peace. The war was still within him.

Ha – Ha: which is it?!?

Either the western allies didn't take ANY prisoners and brutally killed them all on the spot…

--- OR ---

they took hundreds of thousands of prisoners and then treated them badly until they ALL died.

Begemot-I don't think anyone is sidestepping Ironwolf's post. It's very relevant to the title of this thread, I for one thoroughly acknowledge that soldiers in combat (of all sides) occasionally kill surrendering or captured prisoners. It's just that this thread has now degenerated into a frankly bizarre attempt, by some, to accuse the western allies of being as evil as the Nazis.

I agree Fox … I think many know that many on all sides during WWII, etc., etc. There were unfortunate events that occurred which could be called a "war crime", etc. And that sort of thing is a sad reality of any conflict, I'd think. But I believe we can all agree many/most in the Allied Forces were not prone to commit such acts. As opposed to some of the other belligerents in the Axis. But yet they still occurred. E.g. the hatred generated between the Germans and the USSR. In a conflict as in WWII, many lines get blurred, a lot of dirty hands and many shades of gray.

Haitiansoldier's account has been locked due to his abhorrent views about race and sex.

Begemot,
I'm sorry to say Donnie passed away in 2005 at the age of 83. He had cancer and when the Doctor wanted him to start treatment. Donnie asked why, I'm 81 years old. My wife and friends have all passed away. I think its time I go visit with them for awhile. While on hospice a Vietnam vet who was a pastor came and visited Donnie several times. He really helped Donnie come to terms with it all.

Another story Donnie told me will fit right in with the discussion. Donnie made a point of explaining to me there was a big difference between the SS/Nazi's and regular German soldiers. Donnie was a welder before the war. While on the front line the medic saw Donnie limping and had him take his boots off and checked him for frost bite. Donnie was sent back to medical and almost lost his toes to frost bite. After being cleared from medical he was being processed out to a new unit. They found out he was a welder so he was re-assigned to Cherbourg France to a harbor repair unit. So for the last months of the war in 1945, when merchant ships coming from England would get bombed or damaged. He'd weld and repair some of the damage. He had three German POW's assigned to assist him. Several other G.I.'s in his unit had German POW's assigned to assist them. One of the POW's assigned to Donnie was a welder in Germany. Donnie said at night him and his friends would get drunk on French wine. Then the next day be hung over and not able to work. So they'd go to the job site with their German POW's and sleep. While the German POW's did the welding and work. Donnie said there was an MP assigned to watch the POW's so it wasn't any big deal. Donnie said the German's he worked with were regular soldiers, no SS or Nazi's. One afternoon while taking a break the MP had fallen asleep with his rifle leaning against a building. One of the German POW's took the MP's rifle and placed it around the corner of the building. When the MP woke up, he couldn't find his rifle and was freaking out. Donnie said they were all laughing about this. Finally one of the GI's told the MP what happened. Well the MP was embarrassed and started slapping the snot out of the German POW who hid his rifle. Donnie said him and several other GI's assigned to his unit stepped in and started kicking the $ht out of the MP. When I asked him why did they do that for a German POW. Donnie explained all of us in that harbor repair unit had served on the front lines. Same as those German POW's. But that MP, he'd been in Europe for a year never been to the front or seen combat. They were not going to let the MP treat another combat Vet that way.

Donnie said over the summer of 1945 as the war ended in Europe, he got to know several of the German POW's that worked with them. He said they were no different than him or any of the other Americans he served with. I always wondered if that's why it effected him so much when he got older??

But to imply the US and UK were just as bad as the Nazi's, Japan or even Russia is just Ridiculous. For one, the US or the UK did not have special units who's job was to go out and execute civilians or undesirables.

Where I live in Illinois there was a German POW camp about 15 minutes away. We're rural farming community. Farmer's could go to the German POW camp and pick up POW's who wanted to work. Take them to their farm and pay them for a days work. No guards, only condition was the German's had to be back in camp by night fall. So in the morning the Germans would sign out and go work on the local farms and come back that evening.

I wonder how often that happened in Russian, German, or Japanese POW camps???

May Donnie Rest In Peace. A peace he so long searched for and very much deserved.

His story about the German POWs was reflected in other WWII Vets' stories about the average German soldier. Not that excuses what Nazi Germany did during the war. But like many soldiers of many nations the average "Joe" was just being a soldier doing his duty to his country. And no war crimes were committed while doing that duty.

In saying that, to make clear to some, I do not support or agree with anything the Nazis or today's Neo-Nazi did/do or what they stood/stand for. I may be able to explain some things that they did but certainly can't justify them in any light.

My Father, a US ARMY Inf SGT in WWII France. Fought the Nazi German forces until he was WIA by a German mortar round. Losing his hearing in an ear for the rest of his life. I'm sure he killed Germans of the Wehrmacht and SS. And they in turn tried to kill him, obviously. It was war … after all …

Many thanks Ironwolf… a moving history that veterans of war can understand perfectly…

Amicalement
Armand

I am sure there were many "uncivilized" actions taken by individual Western allied soldiers in the heat of action, but was not the biggest difference that it was not government policy to to that. I do not include the communist soldiers in this statement. The western governments were not seeking to implement a final solution against anyone.

Dear Bobgnar… imho is not necessary that the goverment install a policy to do war crimes… the officers at charge when you trained and then… when you are at war… promote those war crimes… or tried to avoid them…

In the case Ironwolf mention… what if Donnie soldier denounced that NCO to the Lieutenant in charge of his unit …? … or to the Captain? … etc …

Can you tell me that the Generals did not know that this happened? …and that they did not promote or push their soldiers to do that?…

Amicalement
Armand

As a leader/commander, we were told, "You are responsible for everything your troops do and fail to do." …