Nazi is a Political party, not a military force!

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

Your cool as debate on subjects does gets the blood pressure up. I for one disagree with some of the Nuremberg trial outcomes. The big one is listing an SS soldier as part of a criminal organization. I am sure that was mostly at the behest of the Russians who's hands were bloodier then the entire SS. During World War II the one's with the cleanest hand were the British and Commonwealth Army as the rest of the allies hands were just as dirty as the Germans.

The fight between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany wasn't as bloodthirsty as the fight between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but since the Western Allies were on the receiving ends of the Malmedy Massacre, Oradour-sur-Glane Massacre, the St. Anna Massacre, and the Ardeatine Massacre, which were all perpetrated by the Waffen-SS, I don't think the Western Allies really cared if the Russians wanted to be harsh.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

How exactly was the Commonwealth the least guilty of the belligerent parties?

Pay attention in AP History next time. But the short version is, the Germans treated the Soviets like crap, and when the shoe was on the other foot, the Soviets gave as good as they got, some would argue, even worse. The German were close to the British. Their monarchy has German roots, and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were known to be a little too friendly towards the Germans, even after war broke out.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

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.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Pay attention in AP History next time. But the short version is, the Germans treated the Soviets like crap, and when the shoe was on the other foot, the Soviets gave as good as they got, some would argue, even worse. The German were close to the British. Their monarchy has German roots, and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were known to be a little too friendly towards the Germans, even after war broke out.

Dial back your attitude, man. And don't whine about free speech and debate, blah blah blah. It's not the content of the discourse, it's the delivery.

And crying about how your 'free speech rights' to be a dick is being trampled by the evil 'mods' is a quick way to end up on someone's shit list.

[funkychinaman]

Sorry about that.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

I'd like to point out that the concept of "war crimes" is a very recent development in human history. For thousands of years, it wasn't just acceptable for soldiers to murder, pillage, and rape, it was expected.

[Phoenixent]

FCM here are the oath taken by Germans during the reign of Adolf Hitler

Here is the oath by Heer, 1934 to 1945
Soldiers=I swear by God this scared oath: I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German nation and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at my time for this oath.

Here is the oath by Waffen-SS 1941 to 1945
I swear to thee Adolf Hitler as fuhrer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery i vow to thee and to the superiors whom thou shalt apoint obedience unto death so help me god

Here is the oath by German Public officials=I swear: I shall be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, respect the laws and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God.

Here is the oath by SA =As a member of the storm troop of the NSDAP i pledge myself by its flag to be always ready to stake life and limb in the struggle for the aims of the movement, to give absolute military obedience to my military superiors and leaders, to bear myself honorably in and out of service, to be always companionable towards other comrades.

Here is the oath by Hitlerjugend oath=In the presence of this blood banner, which represents our Fürher, i swear to devote all my energies and my strength to the savior of our country, Adolf Hitler, i am willing and ready to give up my life for him, so help me God.

Here is the oath by NSDAP oath=I pledge Allegiance to my Fürher Adolf Hitler, i promise at all times to show respect and obedience to him and to any leaders he may appoint for me.

Here is the oath by Heer, pre 1934
Soldiers=I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.

So you can see the that all of Germany swore an oath to this man. So say the SS is the only one that swore an oath to him is incorrect.

[funkychinaman]

I think there may be philosophical differences between swearing to risk your life as a soldier and swearing obedience until death. To me, one is "I'll risk my life for this job while I have it," and the other is "I'm yours to do with until I die." One is for x number of years, and the other is for life. Then again, that's just the way I'm reading it. Why not just take identical oaths then?

It's interesting that the SA didn't swear their oath to Hitler himself, even when he was the undisputed head of the NS movement. But then again, I guess they only changed it after getting rid of the SA.

[funkychinaman]

While I'm not conceding, I just don't see this going anywhere. I'm willing to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

While I'm not conceding, I just don't see this going anywhere. I'm willing to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Saying "let's agree to disagree" is the coward's way to concede.