Nazi Tactics!!???

#1
During the German Army retreat through Italy,a large number of soldiers were being killed by `partisans´.To counter this,it was ordered that,for every soldier wounded ten civilians would be executed.For every soldier killed,fifty civilians were to be shot;Quite often whole villages,were destroyed,and burnt to the ground.News? hardly, but wait.

Today on CNN;a news crew accompany a U.S. patrol,talking to the inhabitants,hearts and minds etc.Three hours later,three insurgent snipers open up on the patrol.They call up an air strike,in a heavily populated area,and of course hit the wrong building.Result,seventeen killed,all but one,women and children.It was the house,where three hours ago,they were filming, asking what they wanted for the future,what their worries were.

A U.S.Marine Colonel,then comments;´Of couse we regret civilian casualties,but we will not risk losing any men,if we can use other means´.

I assume that the old tactic of pin them down,and close in, is too dangerous for `Elite`fighting units.

As the civilian population,has absolutely no control over the snipers,just as the villagers in Italy,did not;Calling down an air strike on the innocent,in an off chance of killing the snipers,is a form of retaliation,revenge,mindless murder.Yes accidents can happen,but this is not an accident.You can´t send in an airstrike, and not put innocent civilians at risk.

I don´t remember,after Warren Point, airstrikes on the surrounding villages!

If the U.S. doesn´t want casualties,and take the deaths of civilians,as a normal consequence,is it not time to leave?I supported the war against Saddam Hussain;But the senseless slaughtering of civilians;Who´s the terrorist now ?

There is a very fine line between fighting terror,and becoming a terrorist;In this case the lines been jumped over.

Midnight
 
#2
i totaly agree MN, but this is nothing new is it?

being trigger happy is easier than training hard i guess........................

and they wonder why they get no respect.
 
#3
I think it is a little unwise to draw such a close parallel between the deliberate German tactic of reprisals against the Italian civilian population in the Second World War, and the incident in Iraq which you cited, where I doubt that the American intention was to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians - another such comparison along those lines is the bombing of Dresden and the Holocaust (from a soliphistic viewpoint, the intention is irrelevant as both episodes resulted in civilian deaths).

Wouldn't the airstrikes you allude to in relation to Warren Point have actually entailed the RAF/AAC strafing into the Republic of Ireland? (as interesting a scenario as that admittedly would have been...)
 
#5
Same tactics (if you can call them that) which they used in Vietnam, they obviously haven`t learnt from past experiences. They are never going to win over the population with that method. :roll:
 
#6
gallowglass said:
I doubt that the American intention was to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians
Agree, I don't belive that the Americans intentionally killed civilians. They simply didn't care about it.

gallowglass said:
- another such comparison along those lines is the bombing of Dresden
Probably the goal was to damage German economical potential and infrastructure. Possible civilian victims were not planned, they simply hadn't been taken into account.

gallowglass said:
and the Holocaust (from a soliphistic viewpoint, the intention is irrelevant as both episodes resulted in civilian deaths).
Do you mean that significant part of Jewish victims were not intentionally killed? It is one step from this point to the Holocaust denial.
 
#7
307 said:
Didnt you know, M4s dont have the stopping power so Uncle Sams issuing 1 JDAM per soldier per patrol.
If they got close enough to the enemy,even U.S.Marines could hit them with their M4s,(shooting or clubbing,take your pick);1000lb.bombs in populated areas is not a good way to bring democracy,and freedom.

Self respect is (was?),a big part of soldiering.Watching news stories like this,I´m not surprised that many desert;And it can be no surprise that so many soldiers have been killed.Kill my wife and child,and I´m sure I´m not going to fly the Red White and Blue,I´d probably start cleaning my A.K.

Midnight
 
#8
Piece from this weeks Economist on this issue....


How to do better
Dec 14th 2005 | FORT POLK AND MOSUL
From The Economist print edition



After brutal blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American army has become more intelligent—and hopes to be more effective

DOWN a rough track, glowing silver under the moon, rolls a black pick-up truck carrying a 500lb bomb. The white walls of the American army base loom, but no shout or shot comes. Your correspondent fingers his detonator.

Unchallenged, the truck drives alongside the base, then we blow ourselves up. The first blast, in a yellow flash, lights up a guard-tower and the anxious face of a young GI. The second, after we bombers have scrambled for safety, is much bigger—a hollow boom and an explosion of orange fire that soars 100 feet into the night sky, lighting up skinny pines all around. As the flames fall, The Economist's fellow suicide-bomber shouts to the sentry: “Go tell your buddies, you're all dead.”

That should teach them not to leave open the approach to their perimeter, a mistake that cost many American lives in the early stages of Iraq's insurgency. But these soldiers will live. Their white walls are chipboard, the bomb is a “reduced-blast” special effect, and although fictionally in the Afghan region of “Talatha”, they are at Fort Polk in southern Louisiana, 200,000 acres of pine forest which the army uses for training. The soldiers, members of a 3,500-strong infantry brigade in the final stage of preparation for a mission to Afghanistan, will be extracted from the woods for 24 hours and then, chastened, reinserted to fight again.

Car bombs are not the only bit of Iraqi-Afghan verisimilitude the brigade experienced at Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Centre (JRTC) last month. Attacks with simulated roadside bombs (known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs), rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and small arms, using special effects and lasers, are unrelenting.

The assailants—160 American soldiers dedicated to the task, and dressed accordingly—come in two forms: al-Qaeda terrorists, based in an off-limits bit of the wood called Pakistan, and Taliban insurgents living in 18 mock villages. Another 800 role-players live with them, acting as western aid workers, journalists, peacekeepers, Afghan mayors, mullahs, policemen, doctors and opium farmers, all with fake names, histories and characters. Some 200 bored-looking Afghan-Americans are augmented by local Louisianans in Afghan garb. A clutch of Vietnam-veterans with missing limbs, splashed with fake blood, make terrific bomb victims.

Fort Polk has seen huge changes in the past two years. Designed for light infantry and special-forces troops, it has always dealt with some parts of guerrilla warfare, such as booby-traps and RPG attacks. But in the past the “insurgents” wore blue armbands to distinguish themselves, a tactic strangely shunned by America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. There also used to be no more than 50 civilian role-players on the battlefield.
 
#9
slick said:
Same tactics (if you can call them that) which they used in Vietnam, they obviously haven`t learnt from past experiences. They are never going to win over the population with that method. :roll:
There's only one population they need to win over, and they only need to do that on the balance of every four years or so. After that, they need to 'win over' maybe one or two governments in the region, like Iran and Syria. It's not about hearts and minds, it's about full-spectrum conflict and areas of control. Unlike with us in NI, the yanks won't have to live next to whatever form (or forms) Iraq becomes. It's about warning the ME to behave, maintaining (or gaining) some control over the VITAL strategic resource of oil and doing both while winning elections at home. In the face of Realpolitik, the Iraqi civilian isn't worth much and the truth is, so long as those first two objectives are achieved, we won't mourn dead iraqis for long either.
 
#10
gallowglass said:
I think it is a little unwise to draw such a close parallel between the deliberate German tactic of reprisals against the Italian civilian population in the Second World War, and the incident in Iraq which you cited, where I doubt that the American intention was to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians - another such comparison along those lines is the bombing of Dresden and the Holocaust (from a soliphistic viewpoint, the intention is irrelevant as both episodes resulted in civilian deaths).


Wouldn't the airstrikes you allude to in relation to Warren Point have actually entailed the RAF/AAC strafing into the Republic of Ireland? (as interesting a scenario as that admittedly would have been...)
....................................................................................................................................

It must be impossible to drop a 1000lb bomb in a housing estate,and not have civpop casualties.As for Dresden,the aim was to destroy it,no hearts and minds intended or alluded to.As for the Holocaust being accidental..................Don´t visit Austria!


This is the point I´m making;If they wanted to,there would not have been much anybody could have done, to stop 2PARA,mounting up,and shooting and murdering the surrounding civpop.They wouldn´t have needed Crabair,or AAC;They knew the risks and accepted them;Revenge didn´t come into it.Of course it would have started a never ending war,this is what will happen in Iraq,if these so called Tactics continue.

Midnight
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
gallowglass said:
I doubt that the American intention was to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians
Agree, I don't belive that the Americans intentionally killed civilians. They simply didn't care about it.

gallowglass said:
- another such comparison along those lines is the bombing of Dresden
Probably the goal was to damage German economical potential and infrastructure. Possible civilian victims were not planned, they simply hadn't been taken into account.

gallowglass said:
and the Holocaust (from a soliphistic viewpoint, the intention is irrelevant as both episodes resulted in civilian deaths).
Do you mean that significant part of Jewish victims were not intentionally killed? It is one step from this point to the Holocaust denial.
I'll answer your last question first Sergey. Being neither a neo-fascist nor a Holocaust denier, I did not "mean that significant part of Jewish victims were not intentionally killed". What I did mean was that from a soliphistic [sic]* view there is a direct comparison between the civilian deaths at Dresden and the murder of Jews during the Holocaust....aw hell, I made the mistake of trying to be too clever; what I should have said is that if one were an adherent of moral relativism (which I am not, no more than I am a solipsist), then one could be of the above view. A more immediate comparison is how many in the United States refer to Camp Delta at Guantanomo Bay as 'America's Gulag', which besides being a gross exaggeration is also an unpardonable insult to the millions who died in the gulag system (including quite a number of your Polish compatriots Sergey).

I agree with your assertion that there is a certain level of manifest indifference towards Iraqi civilian casualties among American forces, but I still would not go as far as to describe them as 'Nazi tactics'.

*solipsistic - 'to be of the view that the self is all that can be known to exist'
 
#12
gallowglass said:
I think it is a little unwise to draw such a close parallel between the deliberate German tactic of reprisals against the Italian civilian population in the Second World War, and the incident in Iraq which you cited, where I doubt that the American intention was to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians - another such comparison along those lines is the bombing of Dresden and the Holocaust (from a soliphistic viewpoint, the intention is irrelevant as both episodes resulted in civilian deaths).

Wouldn't the airstrikes you allude to in relation to Warren Point have actually entailed the RAF/AAC strafing into the Republic of Ireland? (as interesting a scenario as that admittedly would have been...)

That's a good point but the end result is the same, innocent people dead and the civpop alienated. Doesn't matter if your home and loved ones were atomised deliberately or by an attitude of better 10 dead innocent iraqis than 1 of our boys.
 
#13
"Each division of 19,000 soldiers had only two IO officers."

Interesting quote from the long article. So All that money spent on some of the finest tehnical means of gathering data in th history of the World is going to cascade onto the shoulders of just 2 (TWO) IO's. Gives you a hint on a couple of aspects of modern Septic Warfare. Who tells them where the enemy is. How much they care about finding the enemy.

After All. With a big enough stick you don't have too look too hard to find the enemy. Just keep bashing about in the dark until the noises stop.
 
#14
"Changing an army's approach takes time. The warrior spirit, as Americans call their propensity for macho soldiering, or killing people, is deep in their military culture. In Afghanistan's violent Helmand province, an American special-forces captain—with broad experience of counter-insurgency—analysed his furtive Taliban enemies thus: “They're cowards. Why don't they step up and fight like men?” Apparently, he had not considered how he might fight if he had no armour, no radio, an ancient rifle and the sure knowledge that if he fought like a man, he would be obliterated in minutes."

Didn't a senior Septic whinge like this in 1967? or was it 68? or 69?

Thick c**ts
 
#15
gallowglass said:
I'll answer your last question first Sergey. Being neither a neo-fascist nor a Holocaust denier, I did not "mean that significant part of Jewish victims were not intentionally killed". What I did mean was that from a soliphistic [sic]* view there is a direct comparison between the civilian deaths at Dresden and the murder of Jews during the Holocaust....aw hell, I made the mistake of trying to be too clever; what I should have said is that if one were an adherent of moral relativism (which I am not, no more than I am a solipsist), then one could be of the above view. A more immediate comparison is how many in the United States refer to Camp Delta at Guantanomo Bay as 'America's Gulag', which besides being a gross exaggeration is also an unpardonable insult to the millions who died in the gulag system (including quite a number of your Polish compatriots Sergey).

I agree with your assertion that there is a certain level of manifest indifference towards Iraqi civilian casualties among American forces, but I still would not go as far as to describe them as 'Nazi tactics'.

*solipsistic - 'to be of the view that the self is all that can be known to exist'
Brilliant answer! I think that political solipsism is a very dangerous phenomenon. However, I must admitt that I am not free from solipsistical tendentions myself and probably neverone is. In this context I would be happy if my (no doubt amateurish) thoughts would be helpful there.

Regards!
 
#16
Midnight

I think it's a bit strong to use the word 'Nazi' in the title of this thread. I very much doubt the local US commander wanted to create even more martyrs.

I do wonder how they marked the target though , and isn't it possible they were , sadly being engaged from that house?

After all, it wouldn't be the first time troops were engaged from behind the shield of Civpop.
 
#17
Mate,
I saw that news piece as well. The US comd was so convinced that the best way of 'taking out' the three snipers was to drop a bomb. Unbelievable. In a housing estate. And there i was thinking the infantry's job was to find and kill the enemy using tactics and those long black things in their hands whilst at the same time defending the innocent members of the community.

The guy was a tw#t. No surprise though really.

Codhead.
 
#18
PartTimePongo said:
Midnight

I think it's a bit strong to use the word 'Nazi' in the title of this thread. I very much doubt the local US commander wanted to create even more martyrs.

I do wonder how they marked the target though , and isn't it possible they were , sadly being engaged from that house?

After all, it wouldn't be the first time troops were engaged from behind the shield of Civpop.
PTP,
they were being fired at,from the house beside the one that got hit;Which didn´t really matter as a 1000lb bomb,is pretty indiscriminate.Yes Nazi,is a strong word and I considered it for a few hours before choosing it,it wasn´t a knee jerk to the keyboard.

The only difference that I could think of, was that the Wehrmacht chose their victims and put them against a wall;This Colonel,by sending in an air strike,decided not to be so chosey.

Of course the snipers were using the civilians as cover;That´s what they do, to get the soldiers to shoot back, and kill innocent civilians, and claim then, that they have to be there to protect them from the soldiers.Disgustingly obvious,and this Marine Colonel fell for it Hook, Line and Sinker,and then says that this is their policy, to save their own men from harm!

Liberators?Keep this up and they´ll want Saddam back!

Midnight
 
#19
Kill three snipers. Recruit four more to the cause by killing civilians. That's a winning strategy. But wait, they all voted so killing innocents is OK isn't it. What, they voted for parties who want us to leave ... Who'd have thought it ?

And if any of our US readers are out there, I'm afraid that you come over as cowards for the way you fight. There you are, the best equipped, best trained Army on the planet, kitted out with state of the art body armour and rifles. Three scrotes with knackered AKs open up. So what do you do ? Close and destroy using superior skill and tactics, thus saving innocent lives ? No. Drop a bomb from 20,00 feet while you hide behind the vehicles. And miss. Then fail to sound the slightest bit apologetic for killing innocents.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#20
The US tactics are designed to keep their own troops alive with minimum risk to themselves, if a few Iraqi's are caught in the crossfire then thats tragic but war is never nice. OK so the tactic may encourage more insurgents but Uncle Sam has lots more bombs.For the record, Dresden wasn't just an RAF thing, the US 8th Air Force were responsible for most of the damage during the daylight phase. Had we continued saturation bombing following the much earlier Hamburg raid ie A major german city every night, the historical evidence suggests Germany would have buckled much sooner and milions of lives may have been saved. Maybe a few Dresdens in the Middle East if we suffer any attacks on our cities might clear a few heads... just a suggestion...
 

Similar threads

Top