Allied atrocities

[Klaus]

I don't show you this to say "Germans were not that bad!" "The allies were bastards too..blah blah blah." We have all been through this discussion. Just have a look at it and let us know your thoughts...

Incidents that occurred during the involvement of the relevant nation in World War II include the following. Not all of these are agreed to be war crimes:

Canada
According to Mitcham and von Stauffenberg in the book "The Battle of Sicily", the Loyal Edmonton Regiment allegedly killed captured German prisoners during the fighting in Leonforte in July 1943. The incident is not mentioned in any other histories of the campaign however.
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada randomly burned houses in Friesoythe, northwestern Germany in April 1945 as a reprisal for the death of their commanding officer. The official historian of the Canadian Army, C.P. Stacey, noted in his autobiography that it was the only incident he was aware of that could be considered a "war crime" associated with Canadian soldiers in the Second World War.

United Kingdom
Area bombing of German cities, e.g. the bombing of Dresden and of Königsberg (East Prussia). While some historians consider this to be a war crime, other historians note that there were little protection for civilians in the laws of war at the time, or dispute that civilians were deliberately targeted, or consider this to be a justified means of waging war.

United States
Canicatti slaughter
Biscari massacre
Dachau massacre
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bombing of Tokyo, Bombing of Dresden, and other bombings. See Area bombing above. Regarding the atomic bombings, for example, one argument is that the alternative allied invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would have caused far greater loss of human life.

Free France
The "Marocchinate" of Cassino

Yugoslav Communist Partisan Forces
Bleiburg massacre
Foibe massacres

Soviet Union
Mass rape and other war crimes by Soviet troops during occupation of East Prussia, which also took place in parts of Pomerania (Danzig) and Silesia, and during the Battle of Berlin and the Battle of Budapest.
the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention (1929) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. This may make it doubtful that the Soviet treatment of German and allied POWs, who "were [not] treated even remotely in accordance with the Geneva Convention", causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, was a war crime. However, The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected this as a general argument, and held that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding because it articulated general principles of international law that are binding on all nations in a conflict, despite one party's non-ratification of the Convention.
A violation of the laws of war that came to trial in Nuremberg and ended in a guilty verdict for Admiral Karl Dönitz but without a sentence for this crime, because the court heard evidence that both sides engaged in it:
Unrestricted submarine warfare incidents that occurred before the relevant nation became part of the allies:

Soviet Union:
Katyn massacre

Post World War II incidents involving Prisoners of War include:

United States:
Salina, Utah POW massacre
Rheinwiesenlager (disputed)

[Jim O]

Excellent post Klaus.

The victors get to write the history. I have been reminded of that many times, especially by my German friends, including a current member of the German Navy stationed here in Virginia until just recently. Many of those events are "footnotes".

We humans all have animal instincts whether American, German, Russian, or whatever, and combat can and often necessarily does bring that out in the worst of ways. Just witness what US soldiers have done in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq. And the stories do not end at the battlefield either. In some cases, US soldiers have come home from battle and could not "turn it off" and have wound up killing wives and/or other family members. This is not meant to excuse such behavior, but merely to explain it. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and if poor training and/or "looking the other way" was involved then their superiors need also to account.

Victors should hold themselves to at least the same standards as those to which they hold those whom they have vanquished. Patton was not officially held responsible for Biscari or Canicattì while General Sepp Dietrich and SS Colonel Joachim Peiper were found guilty of war crimes for their roles as commanders of the troops involved in the Malmedy massacre.

Now when atrocities become a matter of official policy, that is where political leaders bear the responsibility of "war crimes". Even Churchill admitted after the war that Dresden was a terrible thing. But compare that with the bombing of Rotterdam while surrender negotiations were ongoing, or with the destrucution of Warsaw after the uprising had been put down.

As to the situation of Russian and German POW's, well that is a tragedy, and both sides committed unspeakable atrocities. Of course the Russians only treated their own countrymen who had been in liberated German POW camps slightly better.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Jim, speaking of Peiper and Sepp, I remember at their trial at Schwabisch Hall there was a scandal about forced confessions by civilians dressed as US officers, albeit through torture...

For the best source on this subject read "The Devil's Adjuant' by Michael Reynolds.

K

[Tom Houlihan]

Originally Posted by Jim O

But compare that with the bombing of Rotterdam while surrender negotiations were ongoing...

Jim, just to play Devil's Advocate, I don't know if Rotterdam can really be classified as a "war crime." Everything I've read indicates that the mission was supposed to be called off, but that a communications error allowed it to proceed.

So, while it was no doubt a tragedy on multiple levels, the intent seems to be missing, which precludes criminal status. Definitely an error, and most probably an avoidable one, but not necessarily a war crime.

[Sarge]

Good post, though I do tend to think that there is a diffrence between heat of battle crimes and planned mass murder. Just a thought.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Tom Houlihan

Jim, just to play Devil's Advocate, I don't know if Rotterdam can really be classified as a "war crime." Everything I've read indicates that the mission was supposed to be called off, but that a communications error allowed it to proceed.

So, while it was no doubt a tragedy on multiple levels, the intent seems to be missing, which precludes criminal status. Definitely an error, and most probably an avoidable one, but not necessarily a war crime.

General Schmidt had requested a delay, that is true. Why this delay was not carried out is, and will remain always a question as there is no documentation. One theory is a "simple" miscommunication. Another is that it was intentional (perhaps by Goering himself). In my opinion it falls into the category of "war crime" either way. If a man pulls a trigger and "recklessly" kills another man that is manslaughter, a fairly serious felony. This was reckless at the very least, and perhaps intentional.

Again, it's just an theory, but consider the later bombing of Belgrade (which was strictly to punish the civilian population -- in fact wasn't it code named "Operation Punishment"?), and the planned destruction of Paris and one sees a pattern that suggests that this may have been more sinister than a simple "miscommunication".

[Klaus]

Well, if it really was miscommunication or not we'll never know. Of course it would not be surprising if it was intentional. But why negotiate if they wanted to bomb it anyway?

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Klaus

Well, if it really was miscommunication or not we'll never know. Of course it would not be surprising if it was intentional. But why negotiate if they wanted to bomb it anyway?

This is a good question. And it speaks to perhaps differences between the professional soldiers on the ground and the (political) leadership. Again it's just a theory. I do believe that General Schmidt likely wanted the air raid delayed. Another possibility is a political squabbles among his superiors.

[Klaus]

My thoughts: They are negotiating because they want the city intact. If negotiations fail they'll bomb it. Then there is Miscommunication. What's left is a city in flames and ruins.

Possible is everything. Choose wisely...

[Egorka]

Hello guys,

I did not have time to read this thread, so bear with me if has been mentioned already...

Few years ago I heard from a British guy that when allies landed in France in 1944 they did not take prisoners first few days simply because it was very unpractical during the landing operation.

Do you know what were the orders they might have had in this respect?


Best regards
Igor