Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a second hand account of how the British treated the Italians in a large POW camp in SA called Zonderwater. Those Italians who were not die hard Fascists were permitted to work on Boer farms in South Africa. The Boer farmers treated the Italians like fellow Europeans often leaving them in charge of the farm when the farmer needed to go to Johannesburg.
The worst thing that the British did to the Italians was to throw homosexual magazines over the fence at them. Perhaps this was a response to Il Duce's claim that the Italians were the greatest he men on earth.
The Australians were more dangerous to the Italians by shooting randomly into the camp.
Those looking for more 'information' - ahem - along the lines of what John is offering here can just go to Stormfront. They have oodles of it.
Note how John is careful not to actual state that he believes it. He's happy to put in out there, insinuating that it might be a mere 'exaggeration' (it's not - it's blatant Nazi apologia, part of a systematic attempt to portray Germany as victimized by the Allies), because he wants to give himself the plausibility to run away from it. By asking if it is indeed an 'exaggeration', he is using a variant of the Just Asking Questions rhetorical technique, wherein a person puts forth nonsense but frames it as a question. This shifts the burden of proof, and makes the person who is 'just asking' appear to be a mere seeker of knowledge, rather than the foister of baseless nonsense that they are.
John is so profoundly unhappy over the dominant role of the United States in World War II that he's happy to snuggle up to some pretty unsavory groups, so long as they have dirt to throw America's way.
I don't believe our soldiers (except for the rare wacko guy who exists everywhere) would have murdered a prisoner in cold blood.
Then you're very naive.
Various atrocities were committed by American forces during the Second World War. Note here that I am drawing no comparison between those acts and the systematic, institutionalized brutality and slaughter perpetuated by such powers as Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Watch Ken Burns' The War. You'll see an American soldier - I believe the interview concerned Guadalcanal - talk about one night when a group of Americans were seized by the Japanese and tortured and killed. They next day, their bodies were recovered. They'd been mutilated, genitals severed and stuffed in mouths, that sort of thing. The American veteran commented that after that, they stopped taking Japanese prisoners, the obvious implication being that they would shoot any IJA troops that attempted to surrender or were incapacitated. Few did try and surrender, but there was always some who did.
In another interview with another veteran, he described the killing of German prisoners ordered by a company commander. He didn't like it, and he related that some of those who did the machine gunning of the prisoners didn't like it. But they did it. I cannot remember the circumstances for certain, but I think it was during the Normandy breakout and I think that particular instance was one where a unit was going to get slowed down and be unable to fulfill their mission if they had to tend to prisoners. So they liquidated them. That happened.
Other things happened. In the wake of the Malmedy massacre, reprisal massacres occurred. Patton's diary refers to a massacre of 50 Germans by troops, with his comment that he hoped it could be successfully concealed. Late in 1944, the routine killing of SS prisoners got so bad that the 90th Infantry Division had to specifically issue orders to take SS men alive, because they were a valuable source of information (dead SS men, not so much). There was the Biscari massacre - which was actually two separate incidents that entailed the killing of 71 Italians and two Germans, perpetrated by multiple individuals. Snipers often were killed uppn being captured. And, of course, late in the war in 1945 when the troops began stumbling across concentration camps, guards were summarily executed as a matter of course.
You can't pass that off as simply 'whackos'.
Again, this is not to draw any equivalency. In many cases, we know about these atrocities because a soldier saw what happened, or discovered a bunch of dead enemies who had obviously been executed, and reported it to superiors. And that speaks to the fact that these killings were generally instigated at the low level, though there is some evidence that 'take no prisoners' orders were given at times at the regimental level. Still, in all cases one didn't have to go far up the chain of command to find those refusing to sanction, and actively opposing, such killings. Even Patton opposed them (though he didn't seem to care much about them, except to the extent that they would be unwelcome publicity if news of them leaked) There was no widespread culture of killing unarmed combatants, and the gulf between these incidents and those committed by the other mentioned powers is enormous.
Also, this matter is quite distinct from the subject of this thread. Many of the events I've described here have eyewitnesses and are documented, in some cases by the United States Army itself - unlike the nonsense promulgated by the OP.
I have just read a book on events at the surrender of German soldiers in 1945. It is my second one and that publication was the second and brought up to date one. It was bad enough what happened to the defeated army captured by the Soviets and a horrible persecution and death. However I did not know or expect the same by the Western Allies. The Free French were involved but the large death rate in POW camps was by the USA. It ran into hundreds of thousands not only stuck uncovered but not getting the right level of food support and often virtually noting. General Eisenhower was responsible for these terrible horrors and restrictions and the deaths ran into not a few thousand but hundreds of thousands. He even issued orders that if any local people came up to the barbed wire fences they should be warned they would be shot!
The Free French were also involved but the US military was way ahead of them and the more I have dipped into this the more shocking and a disgrace on the West. Even if an occasional US officer was concerned at the state of health and the starving he was well warned and militarily threatened. It wasn't just SS troops but the ordinary German soldiers who suffered. These massive deaths also existed outwith camps when millions were forced to move but the military attitude for u here in the West supposed to be more principled. Even large numbers of the Wermacht who fled to surrender to the Western Allies rather than be treated horribly by the Soviets were to find they were to starve, become seriously ill and die in mass numbers. Yet all thathas been a quiet ignore thing.
I have not read all the pages on this thread but something seems off. You are making some very bold statements here without any citations. Also, even if that is true then don't forget the fact that the Germans (and Axis) were the ones who started this war. Expecting mercy after all the crimes they committed is silly.
Asymetric warfare is extremely effective and Germany could have switched over to it before they lost too many resources. They should have moved their manufacturing to small buildings and houses instead of large factories and they should have dedicated WAY more resources to nukes, if they got nukes first it would have been game over, London would have been vaporized and the US would have lost any platform to launch from. German Uboats could have terrorized any american fleets trying to gain a foot hold on the extremely limited number of islands in the atlantic.
The other social stuff that will get you banned for even mentioning should have never happened and then they would have retained all their scientists.
Asymetric warfare is extremely effective and Germany could have switched over to it before they lost too many resources. They should have moved their manufacturing to small buildings and houses instead of large factories and they should have dedicated WAY more resources to nukes, if they got nukes first it would have been game over, London would have been vaporized and the US would have lost any platform to launch from. German Uboats could have terrorized any american fleets trying to gain a foot hold on the extremely limited number of islands in the atlantic.
The other social stuff that will get you banned for even mentioning should have never happened and then they would have retained all their scientists.
Polish your skills - you could be an excellent strategy advisor to any future dictator...
Lesson learned: Don’t lose a war. Don’t get involved in one.
Yeah, paint me unsympathetic of any "Germany was victimized by the allies" narrative. Even if the OP's premise were true (an extremely dubious claim to put it charitably), Germany came out just fine considering it launched a war of absolute annihilation of whole nations and peoples that allegedly "victimized" them. In any previous era there would currently be no such thing as Germany and there would be a lot fewer German people on Earth.
I have not read all the pages on this thread but something seems off. You are making some very bold statements here without any citations. Also, even if that is true then don't forget the fact that the Germans (and Axis) were the ones who started this war. Expecting mercy after all the crimes they committed is silly.
Quick synapses if you don't want to read all the pages:
OP's book he references identified as "Other Losses" by J. Bacque
Upon some reasearch - claims in book totally dismissed by just about everyone including a panel of 8 historians that researched the authors claims.
UK guy then posted some youtube videos trying to support OPs claim, videos later traced to radical extreme right (i.e. neonazi) group (some appear to have been removed).
There was almost certainly some degree of myth-building to the idea of a fairly amicable end of the war in the West as it was deemed desirable during the Cold War to ensure positive relations between West Germany and the Western allies.
The conditions many Germany POWs were kept in after the war had ended were indeed questionable, and unnecessary deaths and cruel treatment likely did occur, but then you could say the same about the conditions both Union and Confederate soldiers endured in respective POW camps during the Civil War, too. And those were Americans dealing with other Americans, sometimes from the same states.
The food policy toward German civilians in the 6-12 months after the end of the war was also questionable and certainly not driven primarily by humanitarian concern. This was before the race for the hearts and minds of Germans had begun, and the dominant sentiment was bitterness and animosity vs the vanquished foe. All very human, of course, but perhaps not the finest hour of the victors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- along the lines of what John is offering here can just go to Stormfront. They have oodles of it. 
