Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache
How exactly was the Commonwealth the least guilty of the belligerent parties?
|
Well, unfortunately there were documented cases where our own forces had proof of standing orders to shoot prisoners. This specifically happened AFTER Malmedy even though that massacre of our prisoners seems to have been spontaneous on the part of the German, but OUR shooting of unarmed Germans WAS documented as a written order. Sad Stuff. Also if you dig through the many archives of World War II photographs, you'll see some that will disturb you in a different way. There is an infamous photo of SS soldiers (mostly teenagers between 13-17) standing in front of a wall with their hands up as some American GIs are shooting them dead with M1A1s. Of course these are the bad actions of a few, but they are added up and the government responsible must own up to them as well as the good stuff.
My own father, who was a WW2 vet, spoke of some of the "johnny come latelys", late war enlistees who towards the END of the fighting came charging into Europe looking to bag themselves a "Kraut or two". These noobs were despised by the experienced War Vets. A lot of the new guys were completely happy to shoot surrendering troops, in violation of the Geneva Convention (BTW). If you read enough first person accounts of WW2, you'll realize how crappy War is and how brutal things become (even more so than the 'official' story).
From what I heard, the Brits committed the LEAST amount of objectionable behavior, which is surprising considering how brutal the Brits had been in other wars.