Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

German Woman, 95, Charged With Complicity In More Than 10,000 Murders During WWII

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
I dare say that Germany been able to get an atomic version, one possibility could have been the largest Petard in history under the Kanzlerei,........ armed by a German.


I'd like to have seen someone dig that underneath it without anyone noticing!


Hitler "What's that, it sounds like digging?"
EM (for it is He) " Nothing Adolf, have some more mind bending drugs"
Hitler "are you sure nothing is amiss?"
EM "Its stopped now"
Hitler "can you hear ticking?"
EM "I'm just nipping out for some milk"
 
as I said...... if the war had been extended by Hitlers little foray into the Ardennes in December 1945. which of it had gotten to Antwerp would have extended things into late 1945.
And if it had, places like Mainz, Nuremburg and Berlin were on the instant sunshine list.

The Germans do love to fondly imagine the Americans wouldn’t have nuked them as they were ‘civilised Europeans’, but oh yes, they would, you were always the original target.

shame it didn’t go on a bit, after the liberation of the camps revealed the full horror of what Germans had done, it totally deserved some nuclear punishment beatings.
Ah yes "punishment" a brilliant idea. A really excellent way to "punish" children and women, which usually had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can still be justified militarily, depending on one's point of view, especially when one looks at the possible casualty figures for "Downfall".
Simply dropping nuclear weapons on civilians as "punishment" is just as much a crime as sending people to gas chambers, murdering them in mass shootings, dropping bombs on cities like Warsaw, Rotterdam or London without military necessity.

As I understand it, you have never served and only know what people can do to other people, if at all, from the internet.

I have seen in Kosovo what your form of "punishment" looks like and it is particularly tasty when it is inflicted on small children or babies.

You really think you are one iota better than the Nazis?
You are no better than the bearded man and his fellow murderers.
 

Chef

LE
Ah yes "punishment" a brilliant idea. A really excellent way to "punish" children and women, which usually had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can still be justified militarily, depending on one's point of view, especially when one looks at the possible casualty figures for "Downfall".
Simply dropping nuclear weapons on civilians as "punishment" is just as much a crime as sending people to gas chambers, murdering them in mass shootings, dropping bombs on cities like Warsaw, Rotterdam or London without military necessity.

As I understand it, you have never served and only know what people can do to other people, if at all, from the internet.

I have seen in Kosovo what your form of "punishment" looks like and it is particularly tasty when it is inflicted on small children or babies.

You really think you are one iota better than the Nazis?
You are no better than the bearded man and his fellow murderers.
I think @PhotEx has forgotten the Geneva Convention which mentions something about collective punishments.

Bearing in mind that at Nuremberg Skorzeny, I think, was exonerated of the crime of wearing enemy uniform after a whole rake of allied SOE and SF forces pointed out that they'd done pretty much the same. It would have been hard to try anybody for shooting hostages when a whole city is glowing in the sunset.
 

windswept398

War Hero
Ah yes "punishment" a brilliant idea. A really excellent way to "punish" children and women, which usually had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can still be justified militarily, depending on one's point of view, especially when one looks at the possible casualty figures for "Downfall".
Simply dropping nuclear weapons on civilians as "punishment" is just as much a crime as sending people to gas chambers, murdering them in mass shootings, dropping bombs on cities like Warsaw, Rotterdam or London without military necessity.

As I understand it, you have never served and only know what people can do to other people, if at all, from the internet.

I have seen in Kosovo what your form of "punishment" looks like and it is particularly tasty when it is inflicted on small children or babies.

You really think you are one iota better than the Nazis?
You are no better than the bearded man and his fellow murderers.
I definitely think I'm better than any nazi. I have never loaded my fellow citizens into a gas chamber, for instance.
 
Ah yes "punishment" a brilliant idea. A really excellent way to "punish" children and women, which usually had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can still be justified militarily, depending on one's point of view, especially when one looks at the possible casualty figures for "Downfall".
Simply dropping nuclear weapons on civilians as "punishment" is just as much a crime as sending people to gas chambers, murdering them in mass shootings, dropping bombs on cities like Warsaw, Rotterdam or London without military necessity.

As I understand it, you have never served and only know what people can do to other people, if at all, from the internet.

I have seen in Kosovo what your form of "punishment" looks like and it is particularly tasty when it is inflicted on small children or babies.

You really think you are one iota better than the Nazis?
You are no better than the bearded man and his fellow murderers.


Japan was down and out for the count when Little Boy made his entrance.
LeMay had already written to the Joint Chiefs telling them he was going to be out of anything of any worthwhile size to bomb by the end of August and would be down to using his B-29's bombing very small towns and villages. He was already throwing 400 B-29's at a time at towns of 50,000 in July.
Remember, the target cities had been off limits to conventional bombing so they would be good test targets.
 
I definitely think I'm better than any nazi. I have never loaded my fellow citizens into a gas chamber, for instance.
Yes, Nazi Germany did that and it was just wrong and criminal.
Every single person involved should have been tried and convicted if possible.
The fact that this did not always happen, for a variety of reasons, is one of the stigmas of modern times.

On the other hand, dropping nuclear weapons on civilians as punishment is exactly what the Nazis would have done and did without nuclear weapons.

Today we do it better and every order in the Bundeswehr has to be checked for legality, so if someone had ordered me to massacre civilians, I would have had to refuse this order and, if necessary, arrest the person concerned and bring him to justice.
The rule of law is not an abstract thing that applies or does not apply depending on the weather.
There is no right in wrong, but fortunately you are not photex who would like to "punish" out of some confused sense of moral superiority.
 
I definitely think I'm better than any nazi. I have never loaded my fellow citizens into a gas chamber, for instance.
Yers of course, you’ve never been told to. But I’ve had a lifetime of holier than thou and selective view points. Very few people today can talk about it other than subjectively. As I said before , there but for the grace of god go we all.
 
as I said...... if the war had been extended by Hitlers little foray into the Ardennes in December 1945. which of it had gotten to Antwerp would have extended things into late 1945.
And if it had, places like Mainz, Nuremburg and Berlin were on the instant sunshine list.

The Germans do love to fondly imagine the Americans wouldn’t have nuked them as they were ‘civilised Europeans’, but oh yes, they would, you were always the original target.

shame it didn’t go on a bit, after the liberation of the camps revealed the full horror of what Germans had done, it totally deserved some nuclear punishment beatings.
If is a bloody big word. He didn’t. I also have news for you, if you think the German lobby in America wouldn’t have had a say, you’re deluding yourself. The japanese lobby was pretty much non existent and the Yanks had lost more to the Japs than to the Germans. No they wouldn’t have nuked Germany, whole different ball game.
 
they wouldn’t have nuked Germany, whole different ball game.

I remain unconvinced of this argument - UK development of nukes pre dates Japan entering the war, theres only 1 target it can be meant for at this time Germany.


As for the squemishness / lobbying etc preventing the dropping of the bomb why would it

Lets remove from the argument radiation and cancer etc - they were unkown so whilst modern sensibilities would factor them in - they wouldnt be in 44/45

What is the differrence to the man on the ground between 1 B29 flying over Dresden and dropping Fat boy and what did take place.

You could even argue the former would be more humane as it wasnt hours of terror under constant bombardment.

From an Allied stand point youve same result at lest risk to aircrews

I do not see any moral or practical différence between Nuke and conventional city busting in the 1944/5 context.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
I remain unconvinced of this argument - UK development of nukes pre dates Japan entering the war, theres only 1 target it can be meant for at this time Germany.


As for the squemishness / lobbying etc preventing the dropping of the bomb why would it

Lets remove from the argument radiation and cancer etc - they were unkown so whilst modern sensibilities would factor them in - they wouldnt be in 44/45

What is the differrence to the man on the ground between 1 B29 flying over Dresden and dropping Fat boy and what did take place.

You could even argue the former would be more humane as it wasnt hours of terror under constant bombardment.

From an Allied stand point youve same result at lest risk to aircrews

I do not see any moral or practical différence between Nuke and conventional city busting in the 1944/5 context.

regardless of what could have happened, photex isn't going to get his wetdream of nuking Germany any time soon. Unless he has a snook he can hide up his (sand filled) snizz

 
If is a bloody big word. He didn’t. I also have news for you, if you think the German lobby in America wouldn’t have had a say, you’re deluding yourself. The japanese lobby was pretty much non existent and the Yanks had lost more to the Japs than to the Germans. No they wouldn’t have nuked Germany, whole different ball game.


The German lobby in America would have had a say on who the USAAF bombed?
The Germans, or anyone else outside the inner circle of of a couple of dozen people in the Manhattan Project were totally unaware of the nuclear bomb.

Go read a non German history book, the primary target of the Manhattan Project from the get go was Germany, not Japan, Germany. The Japanese only got a look in in 1943 when it looked like the war in Europe would be over before the bomb would be ready. But if for some reason the war had dragged on into the second half of 1945, it would have been SPF 50 Million time over some German city
 
Lets remove from the argument radiation and cancer etc - they were unkown so whilst modern sensibilities would factor them in - they wouldnt be in 44/45
After the bombs were dropped, the US made great attempts to sanitised the use of the bombs and thus played down both the prior knowledge and subsequent effects.
However as early as 1940, the S1 Committee, pre-cursors to the Manhattan Project were reporting thus;
<<
In its discussion of the effects of an atomic weapon, the committee considered both blast and radiological damage. With respect to the latter, “It is possible that the destructive effects on life caused by the intense radioactivity of the products of the explosion may be as important as those of the explosion itself.” This insight was overlooked when top officials of the Manhattan Project considered the targeting of Japan during 1945.
>>
Source National Security Archives
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
I think @PhotEx has forgotten the Geneva Convention which mentions something about collective punishments.

Bearing in mind that at Nuremberg Skorzeny, I think, was exonerated of the crime of wearing enemy uniform after a whole rake of allied SOE and SF forces pointed out that they'd done pretty much the same. It would have been hard to try anybody for shooting hostages when a whole city is glowing in the sunset.
The surprise witness in the Skorzeny case for the defence was Wg Cdr F F E Yeo-Thomas GC MC* aka Shelly or the White Rabbit.
 
I do not see any moral or practical différence between Nuke and conventional city busting in the 1944/5 context.
Oh there's a difference alright, city busting in the hope that a populace with rise up and force the Government to give in, is one way that it was supposed to work. I think I am correct that in no circumstance has that ever happened, though Rotterdam probably came closest. Certainly not Guernica or London or Paris. The practical difference is that you have a surviving population and the place remains qualifiably usable. Nuking on the other hand kills off any remaining population for years to come and the land is unusable for a period of time. Japan remained USA's greatest threat and more of them served in the PTO than ETO. B17 was far more for Europe than B29 which was envisaged for PT0 in terms of range.
In these cases practical differences are far more important. I mean perhaps they should have nuked Berlin and wiped out half Stalin's Army, that would have made a huge difference But they were never going to nuke in the proximity of the USFORCES.
That's the point about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there were no US forces there.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
Oh there's a difference alright, city busting in the hope that a populace with rise up and force the Government to give in, is one way that it was supposed to work. I think I am correct that in no circumstance has that ever happened, though Rotterdam probably came closest. Certainly not Guernica or London or Paris. The practical difference is that you have a surviving population and the place remains qualifiably usable. Nuking on the other hand kills off any remaining population for years to come and the land is unusable for a period of time. Japan remained USA's greatest threat and more of them served in the PTO than ETO. B17 was far more for Europe than B29 which was envisaged for PT0 in terms of range.
In these cases practical differences are far more important. I mean perhaps they should have nuked Berlin and wiped out half Stalin's Army, that would have made a huge difference But they were never going to nuke in the proximity of the USFORCES.
That's the point about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there were no US forces there.
Also the cost of life across Japan on both side was estimated IIRC in the order of 5 million deaths.
 
Go read a non German history book, the primary target of the Manhattan Project from the get go was Germany,
er no not quite. When Einstein took over the request to get involved in nuclear research it was quite clear that the Jewish Council wanted America to get the bomb before Hitler did- far more as a deterrent- but the confusion that exists is that the Manhattan Project didn't start properly until far later. The distinction is important. Having the bomb was the important thing not the dropping of it. In the Zionist side, the ability that Israel would have the knowhow because they would be intimately connected with it was far more important. Now Bearing in mind the Jewish diaspora and links to Russia, they were hardly likely to want Stalin getting it either. Given the outcome America was hardly likely to attack Germany before war was declared in December 1941, and then these the slight pickle barrel of the ability to carry it before 1942
 
Also the cost of life across Japan on both side was estimated IIRC in the order of 5 million deaths.
Exactly so any US Deaths in that context would have been unacceptable. I mean don't get me wrong possibilities are endless and every time new archive material becomes open, there's a re evaluation, but it doesn't mean it ever got off the drawing board.
 
The German lobby in America would have had a say on who the USAAF bombed?
The Germans, or anyone else outside the inner circle of of a couple of dozen people in the Manhattan Project were totally unaware of the nuclear bomb.

Go read a non German history book, the primary target of the Manhattan Project from the get go was Germany, not Japan, Germany. The Japanese only got a look in in 1943 when it looked like the war in Europe would be over before the bomb would be ready. But if for some reason the war had dragged on into the second half of 1945, it would have been SPF 50 Million time over some German city
I'll just leave this here.
"With respect to the point about assembling the weapons, the first gun-type weapon “should be ready about 1 August 1945” while an implosion weapon would also be available that month. “The target is and was always expected to be Japan.”
 
Japan was down and out for the count when Little Boy made his entrance.
LeMay had already written to the Joint Chiefs telling them he was going to be out of anything of any worthwhile size to bomb by the end of August and would be down to using his B-29's bombing very small towns and villages. He was already throwing 400 B-29's at a time at towns of 50,000 in July.
Remember, the target cities had been off limits to conventional bombing so they would be good test targets.
Just because LeMay had no more targets for his strategic bomber offensive does not mean that Japan was defeated.

Maybe you should just look at some of the information on Ketsu-Go and the projected figures for Operation Downfall, it is more than revealing.

The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.

37_5.jpg
 
Top