Firebombing of japanese cities WW2

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#61

Or allowing the devil to take over sir? Perhaps by killing thousands through the bombing, many more thousands were saved. But in any case, you’re getting muddled in semantics. The simple truth is that high-technology societies make high-technology weapon systems to kill other high-tech. societies, and in the 1930s-1940s, the most practical way was to use strategic bombing to destroy heavy industry located unfortunately next to residential urban areas created to house the workforce, since the idea of suburban commuting was impractical and the automobile was quite expensive and unobtainable by most.

In any case, you are simply confusing two related, but distinct concepts: that which is the written law and that which is basic human morality. According to the written laws as understood in 1942-45, strategic bombing was “legal” since: A.) the cities being attacked were defended in spite of the unfortunate civil populace B.) In any case, as pointed out previously by pdf27, the point is moot because the Japanese and Germans had already conducted area “terror” bombing, thus releasing the Allies from any binding legal consequences.

Perhaps you can provide any examples of Japanese Air Force or Luftwaffe officers that were tried and convicted for war crimes related to aerial bombardment?

So, the bombing was horrific, and morally questionable, but it was not illegal, and I believe it is being severally mischaracterized here a bit. But my point is illustrated by the fact that Germany did not have a long-range bomber force in any real numbers, so they were unable to attack the industrial production facilities in the Soviet Union such as “Tankograd.” They may well have won the War had they been able to hinder Soviet production schedules. Who knows for sure?

Absolutely true, my dear Mr. Nickdresh. Only problem is the fact that previous statement has nothing to do with the principles of International Humanitarian Law, which has the universal character: the regulations of International Law hold for everyone, regardless of time, place, color of uniform, social status, race, sex or other social or individual determinants of people involved. The rights secured by regulations of International Law or Institutions of Justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. They are impartial. This principle forbids us from treating one person different than another. What to hell I am blabbering about? Well, allow me, please one unreservedly known example. Yes, I know – I am leaving the direct theme of our thread, but – alas – I don’t know how to otherwise explain this indeed knotty, and - basically - strict and stringent legal problematic.

I’m sure you know for the terrible occurrence known as Malmédy massacre, which happened during the Western Campaign in 1944 – for the unashamed murder of American POWs at Malmédy…

Malmédy masacre

You see, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, from the standpoint of International Law this was clarly [b]a crime for which the perpetrators would have to be brought to justice…

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

Briefly, my der Mr. Nikdfresh, he was a brazen killer and he deserved his penallty. The case is clear. Period.

Clearly true, I’ve never said anything else. BTW, no one would argue that killing prisoners is correct, and I know of first hand WWII accounts of American soldiers/Marines that did it. But it was never an officially sanctioned policy, and U.S. persons were in fact tried for killing EPOWs in WWII, whilst I am sure that many more incidents were ignored.

However, supposing that every rational human being is able to regard herself or himself as a subject of International Law, and that everyone who is sufficiently mentally cogent will legislate exactly the same, bold, intrinsically humanistic universal principles, I am forced to admit that the very same regulations, the corresponding punishment, as well as all societal repercussions are completely applicable to misdeeds of this personality, this time one in the uniform of US Army, namely to the 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, Executive Officer of a I Company, 3rd Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, of the U.S. 45th (Thunderbird) Division, who had illegitimately and dishonestly massacred with his Browning model 1919A4 machine gun 346 german prisoners of war on April 29, 1945.

1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead – US war criminal

Veracity that aforesaid personality has committed already mentioned atrocity is beyond reasonable doubt. All relevant factographic material concerning this question is located here:

http://www.humanitas-international.org/archive/dachau-liberation/

I think that clear-cut lawful, and if nothing else, my personal stance about actual question of this thread is now completely clarified…
[/quote]

Your comparison of 1LT Bushyhead (interesting link) to the (Romanian ‘Deaths Head’ SS under Joachim Pieper is invalid and faulty logical, here is why --if I am correct, you are operating under the assumption that Americans are somehow hypocritical, persecuting German War criminals (in this case, those that kill POWs) whilst ignoring their own. I do not agree in this case sir, since in fact I am unsure if you are aware that none of those SS-men were executed as indeed they had been tried and found guilty by a US military tribunal in 1946, however, nearly every one of the 71 SS-men had there sentence commuted to “time-served,” and Peiper, the commander of the infamous “Blowtorch Battalion” only served 11-years in prison for his numerous crimes, many of which were committed on the Eastern Front against the innocent civilian populace (though he was assassinated in 1976 in France, and rumors abound regarding who did it) because of serious discrepancies on the U.S. Army’s CID and CIC investigating the event. Accusations of torture and trickery were investigated by a U.S. Senate subcommittee, and the U.S. Army took the nearly unprecedented step of allowing to go free the very men that killed it’s own disarmed prisoners. The discrepancy in your numbers of U.S. prisoners massacred can probably be explained as there were in fact three separate incidents that day, and the killing of U.S. POWs, involving Peiper’s unit. Two of the massacres were committed prior to Malmedy.

#62

Librarian, I appreciate your command of English! Salute!

My dear Mr. Lancer44 - meticulous precision and fastidious sense for philosophical treatment are undisputable characteristics of your posts. I am honored and enriched with this simple, but wonderful proclamation of yours. Thank you. :slight_smile:

Who are you surprising Mr. Librarian ?

No, actually I’m not surpsising anyone, my dear Mr. Chevan – simply – I’m a little bit old-fashioned personality from another, long-forgotten time. All the best!:wink:

Librarian, I applaud your last post

My dear Mr. Digger – allow me to take advantage of this occasion once more to express my personal gratitude for the many marks of affection you have shown. I shall be happy to learn that I have succeeded in inspiring you with confidence and interest. All the best!:slight_smile:

I think you’ve got the wrong idea from my point. The one I was trying to make is that applying law to all aspects of warfare leads to a situation where the legality and morality of an individual act alone are considered. From a moral standpoint, it is imperative that the effects of an action (or of not taking an action) are considered, rather than the action itself. Legal examination of merely the action leads to consideration of the immediate effects (both geographically and chronologically) and so usually misses the most important ones. The result is that I think you’re better off considering the great moral thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo than legal minds like Holmes or Cicero.

My dear Mr. Pdf 27 – I cannot refrain from expressing my personal appreciation of your indeed eloquent address. However, I think that we are actually confronted not because of individuality or collectivity of certain human behavior – final effects of human actions are nothing but summation of all single actions undertaken by individuals. Therefore genuine reason for our intellectual confrontation we share here is the very old philosophical problem – the quandary of so called ethical relativism.

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative, furthermore directly adjective to the specific norms of one’s culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends exclusively on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society, but completely morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativists, there are no universal moral standards - standards that can be universally applied to all peoples, at all times. The only moral standards against which a society’s practices can be judged are its own. However, in that case there can be no common framework for resolving disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

Most ethicists, however, reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental ethical principles (please, note the important difference between ethics and morality!) underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one’s parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be completely condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying ethical principle - the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but they always do agree on the principles. Only in that case a completely artificial, obligatory sociological construct – Law – is possible.

And actually the ideas of John Locke – philosopher of the Puritan revolution in XVII century England – have filled-in both the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1787 as basic cornerstones of Law in USA. To Locke, man - no matter where and how he lives - was and is amenable to reason and susceptible to the claims of conscience. Endowed by his Creator with these potentialities, man can shape his role in society and determine the kind of rules to which he will give his consent.

Locke believed that the good society is a free society in which men live by “right reason” – clearly a completely ethically based orientation.
John Milton - great puritan poet – brought reason and freedom together in Aeropagitica when he spoke for liberty of the press before the English Parliament: “Man is born free and rational”. This basic tenet of the Puritan Revolution was also the basic tenet of American legal theory.

Thus you can congratulate yourselves that you live in a country that purely ethically takes for its norm “liberty and justice for all under law”.
You Americans do not have concentration camps, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, only because the writ of Habeas Corpus is a constitutional, utterly absolutistic, intrinsically ethical presumption and guarantee available to all. You have no Gestapo – when law-enforcement officers act too brashly or brutally, they cases fail in court. Due process of protection under law is embedded into the supreme law of the land as an stringent ethical value. You have no secret or mass trials. Every man accused is entitled to a speedy, public and impartial trial. He is entitled to know the charges against him, to be confronted with the witnesses and the evidence against him, and the government will subpoena witnesses for him. Over every court presides “His Honor, the Judge”. And “Judges,” as observed by Justice Douglas in a contempt – of – court case, “are supposed to be man of ethical fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy social climate.”

And indeed, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, they really are. Furthermore – they have to be! Especially in the hardy climate of today. More than that – they are generally men of “right reason” devoted to their calling. And the law they serve always was and still is – “What a reasonable man would think just!”

Incidentally, where did you learn your English? It’s been years since I’ve seen the word “scrupulously” in normal usage.

Well, I think that I was just lucky with my old Alma Mater, University in Novi Sad. In those ancient times we were treated with utmost benevolence, completely free to discover intrinsic beauty of English.

I like

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Calooh! Callay!”
-I’m chortling in my joy! –:wink:

Or allowing the devil to take over sir? Perhaps by killing thousands through the bombing, many more thousands were saved.

And perhaps by killing millions through the bombing there would be no fatalities on our side at all, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh? In spite of everything that’s completely logic - all potential enemies that are jeopardizing our undoubtedly righteous side are permanently evicted toward reaching a possibilllity to do us any harm! Therefore – why not? It is not incontestably forbidden by law. Yes, there are some post-WW2 regulations about that issue, yet again within International law, but back there in 1945 the whole thing was completely legal.

Or perhaps there really is something inherently erroneous within that previous proclamation of mine, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh? Yes? Oh, my goodness! What, if I may ask? Perhaps a forcefully emphasized outcry toward ethical relativism? Or perhaps that blatant reduction of human morality and ethics heritage into a shiny sophistic hootchy-kootchy dancer’s tights? Yes, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, you are right if you think that.

Because – basically - I’m simply pronouncing that "What is right for you is not for me" – and our common denominator in this whole issue we are sharing is the posture that “There are no universal ethical norms.” Ergo – whole concept of legal adjunction is impossible - law therefore is incapable to control human behavior. In addition, different questions could not be settled equitably under law. Only problem with that stance of yours, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, is the verity that human civilization in that case is completely impossible too.

But in any case, you’re getting muddled in semantics.

Oh no, my dear Sir – those semantics are only an expression of my vividly flamboyant but in the very same time delicate tendency not to be treated as a personality that is belligerently exalting his own inarticulateness. That’s all.

#63

A.) the cities being attacked were defended in spite of the unfortunate civil populace

Correct statement, Sir, but ethically and legally irrelevant one. Are you suggesting that indiscriminative annihilation of hospitals or orphanages as legally strictly protected institutions is somehow ethically and legally justified? Please, elaborate this matter. You have some additional, genuine photo – material that give emphasis to this question.

Devastated Tokio - 1945, photo taken by US Army

B.) In any case, as pointed out previously by pdf27, the point is moot because the Japanese and Germans had already conducted area “terror” bombing, thus releasing the Allies from any binding legal consequences.

Legally completely incorrect statement, Sir. As already emphasized in previous posts, the point is not moot because existence of aforesaid, clearly evident legal protection, as well as legal consequences was and still is established upon international law, and consequently empowered as an autonomous, supranational binding entity.

The simple truth is that high-technology societies make high-technology weapon systems to kill other high-tech. societies, and in the 1930s-1940s, the most practical way was to use strategic bombing to destroy heavy industry located unfortunately next to residential urban areas created to house the workforce, since the idea of suburban commuting was impractical and the automobile was quite expensive and unobtainable by most.

Oh, really? Indiscriminative, blind bomb-pouring was the best technological solution available? Gee, I am flabbergasted! All those years fulfilled with intensive scientific work back there in mid-thirties, all those millions of dollars splurged into different bombing technologies, all those tactical developments, operational studies, etc. etc. – and finally simple low-level dissipation as the only possible solution for disabling Japanese war production? Are you absolutely sure, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh? Yes, I know – jetstreams, turbulences, new generation of enemy Japanese fighters, 77 mm AA artillery, etc, etc – that’s the usual semi-scientific apology for all those horrific occurrences. But actually, my dear Sir, low-level, high-speed pinpoint precise, attacks, as well as diving bombardments were the most devastating, and in the meantime most civilized and human forms of annihilation of enemy war production.

Yes, I know – you don’t believe this. I have to prove this stance too. Well… I think that I shall be capable to do just that.

Have you ever heard for Operation Dick Tracy, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh? No? Well, I am not surprised. Nowadays everybody knows for Operation Paperclip, but, alas, Operation Dick Tracy is still almost completely unknown. Dick Tracy was the largest ever committed US secret scientific operation, and basically it includes capturing of all German aerial recon photos, maps, target folders, films, books, etc. More than 1.2 million German aerial photos, including all bombing experiments of Luftwaffe, detailed, high-resolution snapshots of USSR national territory, etc. are nowadays declassified and legally completely available in the US National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

Amongst those photographs you will be able to find all results of German in-vivo experiments concerning precise level bombardment. Here you have two of them. They are representing German high-speed, low-level bombardment of Soviet airplane factory in Voronyezh, back there in 1941.

Target photo, airplane factory Voronezh, USSR - photo taken by Stabia Lfl. 2

Are you capable to identify factual production area of the factory? Yes, exactly – those buildings within white quadrant.

Bombing raid - Voronezh airplane factory, USSR - photo taken by Stabia LFL. 2

And here you have the very moment when old Luftwaffe working horse, a Heinkel 111, releases his one-ton bomb from only 70 m altitude, speeding with some 350 km/h. Time-fuse is positioned to 4 sec. delay. Target is to be completely destroyed, barracks with human beings undamaged, all important production machinery devastated beyond repair, and fliers completely safe and sound.

Of course, fighters are out there and they are controlling the skies. Civilized, legally absolutely correct, and intelligent war conduct. Area-saturation? Perfect example of unproductive, immoral, extravagant and utterly inhuman, but in the very same time utterly cheap warmongering, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh.

Honestly, Sir, do you really think that Germans were the only sufficiently cogent soldiers on this planet? Of course not - Britons have achieved some magnificent results using this technique too. And, if nothing else, they have always fairly and squarely shared that hard–acquired knowledge with their… somewhat inexperienced transatlantic relatives.

Perhaps you can provide any examples of Japanese Air Force or Luftwaffe officers that were tried and convicted for war crimes related to aerial bombardment?

No, Sir. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. But I know a very depressing reason for this regretful verity. Main reason for that grief-stricken absence of legal prosecution for area-bombings undertaken by Goering & Co. (Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, etc.), for all utterly unsuccessful legal top-offs of that poor Russian fellow Nikichenko, who really have tried out all possible legal means toward reaching aforementioned goal at Nuremberg, for our dispute we have here was that ill-fated window located in the entrance hall of the court. You see, on the other side of the glass there was a truly remarkable scenery, namely this one:

Nuremberg, 1945 - Photo taken by US Army

Scenery, my dear Sir, completely capable to create a potentially dangerous legal precedent, a very unpleasant standard that potentially could be dangerous for our post-WW2 goals. That ill-fated oversight at Nuremberg actually is another reason for our dispute here.

#64

So, the bombing was horrific, and morally questionable, but it was not illegal

Oh yes, it was Sir. Please, take a closer look:

http://lawofwar.org/hague_iv.htm

The most important lines are bolded.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

Perhaps you do know what necessary steps were undertaken by Gen. LeMay toward protection of hospitals and places where the sick and wounded were collected. If so – please, do not hesitate to present those facts.

But it was never an officially sanctioned policy,

Oh, Really? And how about this little piece of evidence?

Order 27. issued by Headquarters of the US 328th Infantry Regiment, on 21 December for the attack scheduled the following day says: “No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight.”

It seems to me that some actions of particular US Army units actually were condoned by the chain of command.

Your comparison of 1LT Bushyhead (interesting link) to the (Romanian ‘Deaths Head’ SS under Joachim Pieper is invalid and faulty logical, here is why --if I am correct, you are operating under the assumption that Americans are somehow hypocritical, persecuting German War criminals (in this case, those that kill POWs) whilst ignoring their own.

No, my Mr. Nickdfresh, actually it is completely valid – I am only presenting the facts, the true facts, and nothing but the facts. You assume too much.

I do not agree in this case sir, since in fact I am unsure if you are aware that none of those SS-men were executed as indeed they had been tried and found guilty by a US military tribunal in 1946, however, nearly every one of the 71 SS-men had there sentence commuted to “time-served,” and Peiper, the commander of the infamous “Blowtorch Battalion” only served 11-years in prison for his numerous crimes many of which were committed on the Eastern Front against the innocent civilian populace …

Am I aware? Of course, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, from top to bottom! The whole controversy arose over the way in which the investigations were handled. The Americans sought to show that this evident massacre was the result of a German policy decision not to take prisoners – plain charge against the perpetrator was insufficient for a politically overambitious US prosecutor. Therefore order was said to have emanated from SS Oberstgruppenführer Josef “Sepp” Dietrich.

After the war some 500 Waffen SS soldiers from I SS Panzer Corps, including Dietrich, SS Gruppenführer Hermann Pries, commander of the Leibstandarte, and SS Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper – commander of the spearhead unit, Kampfgruppe Peiper, were imprisoned. The senior officers therefore were charged with transmitting an illegal order that prisoners were to be executed. No written evidence was ever found to substantiate these charges (though the US 328th Regiment of the 26th Infantry Division did have a written order that “no SS troops… will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight”), but the Americans were able to come up with witness testimony that such orders were given, as many junior SS soldiers testified against their officers. As a result, a total of 42 death sentences were passed down by the court, as well as 28 life sentences.

It was later discovered, however, that the testimony obtained from those soldiers who incriminated their officers was obtained by illegal means. US Army investigators had used both physical and psychological torture to extort false confessions. Their methods were more suited to the Gestapo than the US Army. So badly tainted were the proceedings that rumors of what had occurred leaked out in the USA, causing an outcry. A special commission was founded to investigate the trial proceedings, which were found to be so flawed that all the death sentences had to be commuted. As a result Dietrich was released in 1955 and Peiper in 1956.

Excellent elaboration of this whole issue is located here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02.html

And here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02A.html

As well as here:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre03.html

And no, my dear Mr. Nickdefresh – neither Peiper nor Fleps were not members of a deaths head unit. They were only members of the Waffen SS. Totenkopfverbaende, actually were SS units assigned to guard concentration camps, and later they also served as elite combat units. They were named for the skull-and-cross-bones symbol worn on the right collar of their uniforms, and after 1941 by members of SS Division Totenkopf.

Also Peiper has never committed a war crime on the Eastern Front, or anywhere else. Furthermore, his personal gallantry was confirmed even through a letter signed by a Rabbi that was officially presented during his war crimes trial. An outstanding man who has fought for a completely wrong idea.

Besides, Sir, permit me a question: Peiper et al. actually have been prosecuted, and exposed to due process of law, as you can see on this photography:

Malmedy Massacre Trial - Peiper on the stand, June 17, 1946

Would you be so kind to tell me where and when was prosecuted 1LT Bushyhead, and what was the verdict in his trial?

May God bless you and keep you.

#65

The one fact that is certain in this debate-all major combatants, other than the Soviet Union, carried out unlimited and unrestricted bombing of enemy cities.

This bombing commenced in the first weeks of the war and continued to almost the end of the war. I think the main reason why bomber commanders were not charged with war crimes was the simple fact it would have opened a Pandora’s Box for the Allies.

Regards to all,
Digger.

#66

Concur - sort of. The problem is that you haven’t addressed a common issue in war, that you may (probably will) be faced with two bad choices. For example, bomb that target surrounded by civilians, or not bomb it and allow a concentration camp to go on operating for another 6 months. If you do one, you will kill civilians. If you don’t, your enemy will kill even more civilians. Yet taking a legal viewpoint only your own actions are assessed, not the effect they have. From both a moral and ethical standpoint (in that situation) you would be compelled to take actions that were legally wrong.

Now this is an artificial situation, but not too dissimilar to the situation that the allied air forces found themselves in in the early 1940s. It was their honest belief (mistaken or otherwise) that not bombing would have a worse effect than bombing.

#67

The Allies were also acting on the notion that the more horrifying and intense the bombing, the faster the War’s conduct would be prosecuted to its conclusion --thereby saving more lives ultimately in the end by preventing the inevitable famines and pestilence that often accompanies a country’s decision to fight to the last (in this case Germany and Japan).

And I shall repeat my point, the reason why the Soviet Union and the USA never came to apocalyptic blows was largely due to the horrors observed during the strategic bombing campaigns and after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

BTW, this is an excellent discussion, I applaud all in this thread for their thoughtful posts…

#68

The RAF and the USAAF in fact did spare the aforementioned buildings “as far as possible” as indeed most survived, and where never direct targets though certainly destruction was wrought collaterally and I agree that too-little concern was given.

Perhaps you do know what necessary steps were undertaken by Gen. LeMay toward protection of hospitals and places where the sick and wounded were collected. If so – please, do not hesitate to present those facts.

I don’t actually. But he was not required to “protect” them, only not to place them under direct attack.

But point well taken, LeMay was a bastard. Interestingly, one of the older gentlemen I work with was a USAF fighter pilot and is retired whom met LeMay on several occasions. I even heard a few first and second hand account stories regarding him.

Oh, Really? And how about this little piece of evidence?

Order 27. issued by Headquarters of the US 328th Infantry Regiment, on 21 December for the attack scheduled the following day says: “No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight.”

Interesting, could I have a link or a bibliography? The only direct order as to the not taking of prisoners was that I’ve ever heard of by a U.S. General effectively stating via euphemism that no German snipers were to be taken prisoner if they surrendered.

It seems to me that some actions of particular US Army units actually were condoned by the chain of command.

Oh definitely, as did virtually all chains of command in WWII. There’s no question that some U.S. troops tacitly acknowledged that they did not take prisoners, or erred on the side of caution in shooting anything that moved, even if it was a German soldier trying to surrender. But many Germans were taken prisoner, most that wanted to surrender certainly, if they weren’t shot by their comrades first or killed in the heat of battle shortly after throwing down their arms.

But I think the universally acknowledged historical truth that Germans preferred to surrender to Americans or British, while fanatically avoiding capture by the Red Army or Free French Forces, or by forces of any country they once occupied, speaks volumes. In fact, the War was less personal and vicious on the Western Fronts than it was most anywhere else.

No, my Mr. Nickdfresh, actually it is completely valid – I am only presenting the facts, the true facts, and nothing but the facts. You assume too much.

Fair enough, I haven’t had the chance to read much of the article as I am very busy of late, and have limited computer access at the moment

Am I aware? Of course, my dear Mr. Nickdfresh, from top to bottom! [b]The whole controversy arose over the way in which the investigations were handled…

So you acknowledge that the U.S. justice system did have protocols in it to guard against or minimize abuses? Even when it benefits the accused and convicted to the point that it is almost criminal. Peiper should have been executed for his crimes against Russians on the Eastern Front alone.

Apparently, somebody took the law into their own hands in 1976.

And one of the U.S.'s main contentions in the case was that Peiper, and Dietrich (whom I had forgotten about since I hadn’t researched this much recently) were in fact both guilty, and that there was little evidence that they were acting on any direct orders from Hitler and were bound under penalty of military “justice” to massacre American soldiers as a “warning” to those putting up any stiff resistance. In fact, this was the very foundation of their defense that was quickly discredited --vis-à-vis: they were not only “just following orders,” but would have been punished if they refused. The prosecution, as incompetent as it was, quickly put this to rest as it was obvious that most German commanders, be they Wehrmacht or Waffen Shultz Staffen, took a fair number of bewildered and surprised American soldiers prisoner in the opening of the Ardennes Offensive. In any case, whether there were written orders or not, the case was symbolic as the Germans were very cruel to the Belgian civilians

Here are some accounts:

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/bulge/9.html

The Malmédy massacre would have repercussions reaching far wider than one might expect of a single battlefield atrocity in a long and bitter war. This “incident” undoubtedly stiffened the will of the American combatants (although a quantitative assessment of this fact is impossible); it would be featured in the war crimes trials as an outstanding

[261]

From: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_11.htm

PEIPER’S TROOPS ON THE ROAD TO MALMÉDY

…example of Nazi contempt for the accepted rules of war; and it would serve a United States Senator as a stepping-stone toward a meteoric career. But the Malmédy massacre and the other murders of 17 December did not complete the list chargeable to Peiper and the troops of the 1st SS Panzer Division. By 20 December Peiper’s command had murdered approximately 350 American prisoners of war and at least 100 unarmed Belgian civilians, this total derived from killings at twelve different locations along Peiper’s line of march.

So far as can be determined the Peiper killings represent the only organized and directed murder of prisoners of war by either side during the Ardennes battle. 4 The commander of the Sixth SS Panzer Army took oath in the trials of 1946 that, acting on Hitler’s orders, he issued a directive stating that the German troops should be preceded “by a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown.” There is conflicting testimony as to whether the orders finally reaching Peiper specifically enjoined the shooting of prisoners. There is no question, however, that some of Peiper’s subordinates accepted the killing of prisoners as a command and that on at least one occasion Peiper himself gave such an order. Why Peiper’s command gained the bestial distinction of being the only unit to kill prisoners in the course of the Ardennes is a subject of surmise. Peiper had been an adjutant to Heinrich Himmler and as a battalion commander in Russia is alleged to have burned two villages and killed all the inhabitants. The veteran SS troops he led in the Ardennes had long experience on the Eastern Front where brutality toward prisoners of war was a common-place. On the other hand Peiper’s formation was well in the van of the German attack and was thus in position to carry out the orders for the “wave of terror” tactic-which might be excused, or so Peiper claimed, by the rapid movement of his kampfgruppe and its inability to retain prisoners under guard…

Col. Peiper “personally directed” the killing of at least six US soldiers, but his attitude and command style was clearly a major factor in the killing of US POWs and Belgians. In any case, as a commander, he failed to stop it.

Con’td

#69

[b]It was later discovered…Their methods were more suited to the Gestapo than the US Army. So badly tainted were the proceedings…

There is some truth to this, as I have previously stated, but comparing the CID/CIC investigation to a “Gestapo” round up of the French Mache is ridiculous hyperbole. Most of the confessions were actually obtained via trickery. For instance, it was inferred to the SS-prisoners that they were undergoing a trial of sorts when in fact they were under interrogation (three U.S. officers and civilians would be seated at a black table with a crucifix placed on it, and it was implied that the Germans were to be executed shortly, and that they might receive mercy if they implicated others or that they would have a chance to clear their consciences before put in front of a firing squad, this was an effective, but highly controversial, tool in obtaining confessions.)

And no, my dear Mr. Nickdefresh – neither Peiper nor Fleps were not members of a deaths head unit…

Well, he certainly has the “Death’s Head” on his silly hat…

Also Peiper has never committed a war crime on the Eastern Front…

He may have been “heroic,” but he was a bastard. They didn’t call them the “blowtorch battalion” because they were handing out candy to Russian children. Gen. LeMay was “heroic” in that he flew dangerous missions, and that he also helped build the USAF’s Strategic Air Command, but he was also a loose cannon infatuated with using the forces under his command in every possible opportunity. Read some accounts of the interactions between he and Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy, I think they both thought he was nuts.

Besides, Sir, permit me a question: [u]Peiper et al. actually have been …Would you be so kind to tell me where and when was prosecuted 1LT Bushyhead, and what was the verdict in his trial?

I don’t know. If 1LT Bushyhead was killing prisoners, then he should have been charged with murder under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. But, there were many murdering bastards that never saw justice, he would be only one of them.

BTW, have you had a chance to see this thread? http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3671

May God bless you and keep you.

You too, have a good holiday season…

#70

BTW, if you are going to make statements comparing 1LT Bushykill to Col. Pieper, please keep your facts straight. The number of SS-men killed under 1LT Bushykil’s leadership was 17, at a concentration camp! --though he did indeed intend to massacre the rest, but was in fact stopped by the quick action of his Battalion Commander, LTC Felix Sparks.

The account is here, and I posted a thread on this incident as it was reported in the Boston Globe several years ago. And while Bushyhead’s actions are out-of-line, he killed Waffen “Death’s Head” SS that indeed were guarding a concentration camp, and did this only after discovering boxcars containing festering corpses of dead Jews and other “Work Camp” victims…

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index5_6.shtml

I think there is in fact a difference in massacring prisoners guilty of only putting up resistance as soldiers, and massacring concentration camp guards in the heat of the moment. I think temporary insanity would have been a valid plea after opening boxcars of children…

Arbeit Macht Frei indeed…

#71

Got to be a bit careful there - the skull and crossbones is associated with Cavalry in that part of the world as well as the SS. The QRL for instance in the UK have a similar badge:

#72

In America too (but for all the wrong reasons).

#73

This is excellent Librarian :smiley:
MAy be you’ll write a book about it.
I’ll buy it certainly.

#74

Not true Nicdfresh. This is cynically to speak the Hirosima was reason of prevention of Third Nuclear War.
Becouse after the 1945 were developed a much more powerfull Hydrogen bomb and US( like and USSR) made a handrets testing of hydrogen explosions during 1950-1970.
Why they did it, to see the REAL HORROR. And it was absolutly clear that just the TREAT OF TOTAL DISTRUCTION was the REAL reasons stopping of hysteria. Not relative weak a-bomb in Hiroshima.

#75

Whether or not the USSR realised, by 1949/50 or so the US was capable of almost completely destroying the Soviet Union.
They had several hundred implosion-type weapons and in the form of the B-36 a bomber that was uninterceptible by the Soviets. The first aircraft capable of getting up high and fast enough to intercept it was the MiG-17 (afterburner/reheat made all the difference). The net effect was that the hundred or so largest Soviet cities would have been destroyed on the first day of war, pretty much ending it there. While there would still be plenty of Russians left alive, whatever was left would not be recognisably Russia.

Thermonuclear weapons only made things worse.

#76

Really was capable but it’s not the point.
Nicdfresh wrote that Hirosima and Nagasaki prevented USSR-USA war after the WW2 i.e. its prevented USSR agression. It’s wrong, becouse Stalin was not so stupid directly to attack the USA after 1945. USSR was half-damaged after the war and it was senseless to begin the new war with super-rich (becouse all gold of USSR, Britain and France after the war were in american hands- as pay for lend lese) and super-power USA.
Indeed horror of A-bombing of Japane prevented nothing. Neither China’s communist victory in 1946-49 nor Korean war in 1950-53.
A-bomb in 1945 was just political toy of USA.
“Look to the us - we are the steep. We could kill everybody who atacked us”
But In reality nobody couldn’t to attack USA after the 1945. Stalin’s taktic was another - to support national-communist movenments in South-Eastern Asia. And he was greatly succeeded in this.

They had several hundred implosion-type weapons and in the form of the B-36 a bomber that was uninterceptible by the Soviets. The first aircraft capable of getting up high and fast enough to intercept it was the MiG-17 (afterburner/reheat made all the difference). The net effect was that the hundred or so largest Soviet cities would have been destroyed on the first day of war, pretty much ending it there. While there would still be plenty of Russians left alive, whatever was left would not be recognisably Russia.

Yes, in this period US command made a lot to force the Cold War- flyings of B-36 and ets above soviet territory were frank provocation and direct disturbance of international right. It was insolent call for the SU and resault had soon appeared.
3 april of 1950 in the Baltic sea was shooted first B-36 (by the flight Mig-15)
Perished 10 mens of american crew.
17 april above Nothern sea - next B-36 was shooted (again death all of crew)
5 may 1950 - last B-36 above Pacific ocean.
After this command of USA stopped the B-36 flyghts across the USSR.

Thermonuclear weapons only made things worse.

Not correct. In 1970 when the total quantity of thermonuclear charges were so much that the application although one of side (USSR or USA) will lead to the Global ecological catastrophe. Already in the 1953 when first Hydrogen bomb was tested the some peoples in the USA and USSR began to understand that it would be the war without winner.
And just the common sense helped us to avoid the end of civilisation. Not Hirosima- it was just childish play in comparison with 25-50-100(!!!) MAGAtonns thermonuclear charges.

Cheers.

#77

You mean to say that the death-toll of tens of thousands from a relatively small nuclear explosion had no menacing sway over the cold war attitudes?? especially since both Soviet and US war planners were aware that the the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were like an M-80 (firecracker) as compared to the multi-megaton weapons of the day being developed…

Also, the radiation fallout damage on human tissue was vastly underestimated by the US gov’t. The first hand accounts of what happened on those attacks was at least a factor, dramatic examples of what even a tactical nuke could do…

#78

This is not what I said!!

This is precisely what I stated:

“And I shall repeat my point, the reason why the Soviet Union and the USA never came to apocalyptic blows was largely due to the horrors observed during the strategic bombing campaigns and after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…”

#79

The B-36 was certainly overrated and controversial, and was criticised extensively by the U.S. Congress. I’m unaware as to if a MIG-15 could have intercepted it or not. But I can find no record of any being shot down or even of having been used in a reconnaiscance role. I think this is highly unlikely and incorrect and you are confusing the B-36 for some other cargo aircraft used prior to development of a dedicated recon aircraft with the U-2…

#80

Well shooting down the US reconnaissance plane (the incident of 3 april 1950 )in the BAltic sea another soviet sorces called the RB-29 (special B-29 for the radio and photo- reconnaissance). So the commander of group of Mig-15 leutenant Dokin reportered about 4-engines aircraft (B-29) but some US cources told about B-36

Mey be you right Nicdfresh in 1950 it was RB-29, becouse in 1950 US hadn’t B-47 yet.
But i think that B-36 could flyed on the territory of USSR in 1950-54 and it could be shooted down in the crazy Cold war hysteria in the 1950yy.

I hear it was the popular point among the US command in the end 1940-50 while the USSR is weak and hadn’t enought nuclear wearpon yet, it must be destroed.Therefore it was the tupical behaviour of USAF constantly to violate the USSR air border in that period and provoke the SU to the response aggressions.
It was very very danger times.