Hortland, you truly have described some horrific events from the Second World War. Some have questioned the veracity of these events, but I feel no reason to do so even if some events might be shaded or exaggerated. Frankly, given the nature of war they're not surprising at all.
However, there seems to be a disconnection in your position between these events and the greater scope of the war in which they are contained. As I believe Toad pointed out, or perhaps Oldman, it's getting a bit blurry right now, the easiest way for an aggressor power to prevent bad things from happening to its people is to not be an aggressor.
The intense hatred for the Nazi invaders did not bloom in some vacuum. If my neighbor shoots my wife, then hopefully I would call the police and let the courts take care of the matter. Frankly, I'm philosophically dead set against vigilante justice. However, being a human being there is a part of me, and perhaps a part that will be hard to resist, that will motivate me to get my pistol, walk next door and inflict as much pain on him as he has inflicted on me. I wouldn't shoot my neighbor's wife, unless of course she happen to be standing there feeding him bullets or perhaps if I was convinced she was an equal conspirator in the events. Again, hopefully I would do the right thing but then again I've never been put in that position before like much of Europe and the Soviet union was during Nazi aggression. I'll give you my perspective on a few of your examples with this context in mind.
GANG RAPE IN NEMMERSDORF
MURDER AT BRONIKI, UKRAINE
ATROCITY AT FEODOSIA Well, if the Panzer's hadn't rolled East it's really hard to imagine any of these atrocities taking place. And, if the German occupation of those lands hadn't been so incredibly cruel, it's easy to imagine a more controlled response upon finally being able to do to the enemies soldiers, wives and children something akin to what had been done to theirs. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly is unprofessional from a military standpoint.
But the Germans (military and civilian alike) would be the first to admit that the war out East was a "different war," a war which saw over 20 million civilian dead with tremendous disruption, dislocation and destruction.
The Nazi's actively made it a different war, by having a total disregard for the Slavic people as a sub human race. Unfortunately for the German people, who actively supported a man whose ambitions towards an Eastern empire are clearly stated in Mein Kampf
(The Eastern Question), that "different war" found its way to their home soil. In some ways, the Soviet response almost seems restrained.
KATYN FOREST
THE PRISON MASSACRESI'm not going to make excuses for the actions of Joseph Stalin, whose regime I find entirely comparable to the NAZI's. To be fair, I have a similar regard to the years this country spent as a slave-owning nation. Frankly, I'm appalled by people in my country who try to whitewash that disagreeable point in time, and there more than a few, into something that should be sentimentalized and that was somehow more noble than it was.
POLISH MURDERS Unable to stem the onrush of German forces during the invasion of their country, Polish soldiers and civilians started fleeing eastwards. It was during this flight to the east that the ethnic German civilians, resident in Poland for many years, received the full impact of the spite and hate stored up in the hearts of the fleeing Polish soldiers and their civilian followers. Weren't the Polish soldiers and civilians pretty actively feeling the "...full impact of the spite and hate stored up in the hearts of the invading German soldiers and their cousins living in Poland, who wanted to wrestle control of the land for use by a greater Germany?" Perhaps I've misunderstood the role of the German population living in the area at the time. Perhaps the Germans were caught on their way to the border where they were going to try to turn back the mighty German army that was so needlessly attacking their friends? Or were they just sitting back getting the swastikas ready to celebrate in the victory parades after which they would divvy up their neighbors' property.
Again, in isolation this behavior is reprehensible, but when you look at what was going on at the time it seems like a very human response to neighbors who were fully supporting the invaders.
British Army and Serbian Partisans
THE BLEIBURG-MARIBOR MASSACREAt the time of the massacres, a state of war existed between Great Britain and Croatia and therefore these victims should have been granted prisoner-of-war status after their surrender and entitled to proper treatment under the Geneva Convention. Thus Britain broke the regulations of the Convention by sending these defenseless beings back to their deaths."
This seems to be a pretty weak one. You have ethnic hatreds whipped up by a vicious shooting war, no excuse offered for anything that happened there. But then, oddly, you seem to be ignoring the massacres in an attempt to paint the British in a poor light over their treatment of the prisoners where this is concerned. As to the British response, I suppose the status of the Croatians as "armed forces" versus partisan would have to be clarified a bit. It as if the British felt it was more of an internal issue between "traitors" or "partisans" than a standing army. About like the Cossack incidents in that regard.
Take no SS prisoners
Dachau responseYou left off Bradley's SS/take no prisoner orders in the execution of a group of German soldiers after the liberation of Dachau. I have some perspective on these as well, though I do need to review the specifics far more than I have.
What I find insightful, is that battle hardened combat troops found something so horrific, so outside the norm, that they were filled with a blood lust for vengeance that they didn't have before they liberated the camp. Their actions, while criminal and unprofessional, certainly provide a clue as to how terrible the Nazi Holocaust machine must have been when witnessed first hand.
As for the no prisoners/Waffen SS orders -- it was the SS that decided to change those rules. As animalistic as war is there has been, at various times, some attempt to maintain a level of civility on the battlefield. It's an extraordinarily difficult task given the fact that your primary job is to kill another human being while not being killed in return. Having served in the military, I can tell you right now that if I knew the people I'm facing had no qualms about shooting me if I surrendered, then I really don't think I would give a damn what happened to them. That doesn't mean I would machine-gun a field full of prisoners hours after battle in the most cold-blooded fashion, like the SS did on more than a few occasions. But I probably would be less inclined to pay that much attention to somebody raising their hands in the middle of a firefight.
Anyway, I have provided my rebuttals for this portion and look forward to your next response. Feel free if you need to comment on anything I've said here, but I'm starting to get in the mood to move on myself. Agree to disagree, etc.
Charon
