Allied Power war crimes

[Dingbat]

Whats interesting is that most atrocities carried out by the red army werent done by the frontline soldiers but by the ones following them.

Indeed, the rear echelon of the Red Army was notorious for its lack of discipline and it was a subject of a variety of cables back to Moscow by Zhukov and other senior commanders. Stalin had little problem with it but that really isn't a surprise.

 

[LuisDantas]

All these leads to are soldiers that wont surrender and fight till the bitter end.

It only makes everything worse.


Why would anyone surrender only to be used as a human shield and then die?

A more proper question is why will soldiers shoot on targets that are behind their own captured peers.

We must keep in mind that war is inherently criminal and despicable, and therefore to be avoided by all reasonable means.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to admit, it surprised me to read that from you.Why would you surrender, or even consider peace, with someone that is going to use you as a shield? What good does that do except affirm that you do not even see your enemy as deserving of basic human dignity, if you even view them as human.

Eh. What are soldiers but meat shields for the political ambitions of their political leaders in the first place?

I assume you are seeing some purpose in war that I either don't acknowledge as valid or do not see at all.

I'm very opposed to militarism on principle.

 

[Flankerl]

A more proper question is why will soldiers shoot on targets that are behind their own captured peers.

How about "So they dont die themselves."?

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, there is no evidence that bombing civilian populations in World War II lessened the resolve of civilians. On the contrary, I think it was found in after the war studies that it increased the resolve of the civilians.

 

[technomage]

So far as I know, there is no evidence that bombing civilian populations in World War II lessened the resolve of civilians. On the contrary, I think it was found in after the war studies that it increased the resolve of the civilians.

The two exceptions to that were the atomic bombs used on Japan.

Were I a praying man, I would pray nightly that we never, ever repeat that error.

 

[LuisDantas]

How about "So they dont die themselves."?

Do you think that is a satisfactory answer?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Eh. What are soldiers but meat shields for the political ambitions of their political leaders in the first place?

I assume you are seeing some purpose in war that I either don't acknowledge as valid or do not see at all.

I'm very opposed to militarism on principle.

That is why I see using those who have surrendered as a meat shield as bad. Their governments have abused them enough, it is very unfortunate when the solders extend the abuse to those who were abused themselves. But I guess that is the nature and cycle of abuse.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I feel fortunate to live in a time and a society where I am able to openly question, criticize, or even demonize the history and policies of my nation and its leadership without being imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed. Millions upon millions of people throughout history have not been so lucky, but I'm sure they would have appreciated the privilege if it had been an option.

I wonder if humanity isn't finallygetting tired of dumping on itself. Each generation seems to be better than the last, to me. Some people weep for the future, I rejoice. The world of the past is sad indeed by today's standards.

Indeed. Now is the best time to be alive. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

That is why I see using those who have surrendered as a meat shield as bad. Their governments have abused them enough, it is very unfortunate when the solders extend the abuse to those who were abused themselves. But I guess that is the nature and cycle of abuse.

To some degree, taking arms in the first place is accepting that abuse, at least as a possibility. So I really don't see why meat shields wouldn't have the higher moral ground when compared to the alternatives.

 

[Flankerl]

Do you think that is a satisfactory answer?

Yeah i kinda think that the internal drive for survival is kinda important during times of war.


But what do i know.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah i kinda think that the internal drive for survival is kinda important during times of war.


But what do i know.

Not too much, apparently. Has it not even occurred to you that meat shields are supposed to discourage fire?

 

[Flankerl]

Not too much, apparently. Has it not even occurred to you that meat shields are supposed to discourage fire?

So you lay down your weapons only to bei used as a shield where you'd risk certain death or to clear mines only with your hands.

Also has it not occurred to you that using human shields is disgusting? Wonder if you'd still promote it if you were the shield. Now you are probably going to say yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To some degree, taking arms in the first place is accepting that abuse, at least as a possibility. So I really don't see why meat shields wouldn't have the higher moral ground when compared to the alternatives.

Many (especially those in smaller countries) do not have a choice in picking up arms. And do not forget U.S. troops did not just use German soldiers at meat shields, they used German Soldiers who had surrendered and not fought as meat shields.

 

[esmith]

Many (especially those in smaller countries) do not have a choice in picking up arms. And do not forget U.S. troops did not just use German soldiers at meat shields, they used German Soldiers who had surrendered and not fought as meat shields.

And what instances are you referring to and what were the circumstances during the period that you say it happened. Yes, I will agree that prisoners were executed during combat situations and this can and does happen during war. Also it has been alleged that US military personnel executed civilians but the responsible officer was never charged. What amazes me is those that think war is civilized and are "shocked" that certain actions are taken that go beyond "civilized" actions. Now, I do not condone the actions taken during combat but nor do I condemn it...I wasn't there.

 

[Knight of Albion]

History is written by the winners.

Here are the edited bits....

Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And what instances are you referring to and what were the circumstances during the period that you say it happened. Yes, I will agree that prisoners were executed during combat situations and this can and does happen during war. Also it has been alleged that US military personnel executed civilians but the responsible officer was never charged. What amazes me is those that think war is civilized and are "shocked" that certain actions are taken that go beyond "civilized" actions. Now, I do not condone the actions taken during combat but nor do I condemn it...I wasn't there.

I already explained the incident in the OP. And of course our officers were not charged. The hypocrisy of the Allies to say it was ok for their people to do what they did, but not ok for those of the Axis to do, even though they were many on both sides were guilty of the same crimes, and how we try to pretend most of these things didn't happen, is one of the worst crimes of WWII. We shouldn't be ashamed or embarassed for what those who are mostly dead did several decades ago, but neither should we cover our past up. Germany still deals with the shame today, but had they won I have no doubt America would have taken on a large chunk of that shame.
I am not shocked by the events though. War is hell. If it were up to me the leader of every nation involved should have been tried. But how do you try yourself?

 

[esmith]

I already explained the incident in the OP. And of course our officers were not charged. The hypocrisy of the Allies to say it was ok for their people to do what they did, but not ok for those of the Axis to do, even though they were many on both sides were guilty of the same crimes, and how we try to pretend most of these things didn't happen, is one of the worst crimes of WWII. We shouldn't be ashamed or embarassed for what those who are mostly dead did several decades ago, but neither should we cover our past up. Germany still deals with the shame today, but had they won I have no doubt America would have taken on a large chunk of that shame.
I am not shocked by the events though. War is hell. If it were up to me the leader of every nation involved should have been tried. But how do you try yourself?

No, you did not give any information other than conjecture by parties with possible ulterior motives that US combat troops used POW's as human shields. I suggest that you refrain from using the term "human meat shields" since I suspect that this term was derived by those that also have ulterior motives for using the term. Yes, their have been documented incidents of combat troops arrayed against US and allied forces of using civilians as shields for advancing against positions.
You thoughts are noble, but not realistic. The winners are always in the right, that is how it has been for thousand of years and will continue to be as long as there are wars among nations. And unfortunately I do not see the possibility of man laying down there arms. I suspect when the last two humans are left on this world they will fight to the death over a real or imaginary slight, or object.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, you did not give any information other than conjecture by parties with possible ulterior motives that US combat troops used POW's as human shields. I suggest that you refrain from using the term "human meat shields" since I suspect that this term was derived by those that also have ulterior motives for using the term. Yes, their have been documented incidents of combat troops arrayed against US and allied forces of using civilians as shields for advancing against positions.
You thoughts are noble, but not realistic. The winners are always in the right, that is how it has been for thousand of years and will continue to be as long as there are wars among nations. And unfortunately I do not see the possibility of man laying down there arms. I suspect when the last two humans are left on this world they will fight to the death over a real or imaginary slight, or object.

What is wrong with the term meat shield? Does it paint too negative a picture of the troops for you? If you hold another person, a sack of meat, in front of you to take bullets, you are using them as a shield, thus the term "meat shield." It's a pretty common term (especially in action movies) to be worried about some ulterior motives for using the term. In common use the word means just what it implies.

Might does not make one right. Being better at killing doesn't make you a winner. And there is nothing unrealistic about calling out people who sit on a high-horse for their wrong doings. In this case it makes no difference as they are dead, but that doesn't mean we should we pretend it never happened. But the fact that Japan began to move towards negotiating a surrender and then America dropped the atomic bombs doesn't appear in too many history books. The government made the decision to drop it on a nation that was already defeated, loosing their faith in the emperor and wanting peace. Everyone who graduates an American high school should know this.

 

[esmith]

What is wrong with the term meat shield? Does it paint too negative a picture of the troops for you? If you hold another person, a sack of meat, in front of you to take bullets, you are using them as a shield, thus the term "meat shield." It's a pretty common term (especially in action movies) to be worried about some ulterior motives for using the term. In common use the word means just what it implies.

Well to be honest with you, if you use the term it diminishes your "credentials" among those that take military studies seriously. By using a entertainment media term, it paints you as someone who only gets their information from entertainment sources and can not be taken seriously.

Might does not make one right. Being better at killing doesn't make you a winner. And there is nothing unrealistic about calling out people who sit on a high-horse for their wrong doings. In this case it makes no difference as they are dead, but that doesn't mean we should we pretend it never happened. But the fact that Japan began to move towards negotiating a surrender and then America dropped the atomic bombs doesn't appear in too many history books. The government made the decision to drop it on a nation that was already defeated, loosing their faith in the emperor and wanting peace. Everyone who graduates an American high school should know this.

Will have to disagree with you about "better at killing doesn't make you a winner". If one side in an armed conflict is superior in the art of war then they will ultimately win. Yes, the Japanese had put out feelers on ending the war. It was the US military's view that Japan was defeated and only a matter of time before they surrendered. Most of the military leaders deplored the use of the weapon. So, basically this was probably a political decision to drop "the bomb" not a military decision. So, if you look at it from my point of view, politicians are the cause of wars and the destruction they cause not the military. We, the military know it is us that are going to die not the politician. We only carry out the orders of the civilian leaders.