On the Dachau Massacre

[Des-Bal]

I am sure that means a lot to the millions murdered by Nazis. "It's okay, I will object to them as a civilized individual! We can't just kill Nazis!"

Poland will be thrilled to hear of your heroic defense, I am sure!

I'm not saying we can't kill Nazis I'm saying we can't carry out on the spot extrajudicial killings. You understand that in your scenario exactly as many people have been murdered by the Nazis? Just also you're a war criminal.

[Conserative Morality]

And you used it. So... yep, it's your source too, considering you haven't provided another one.

Lord Christ

Yes, it really does have to do with it being a genocide! It kinda is a gotcha moment, because up until this point you were pretending that the Ukrainian people commonly believed that the Holodomor was a natural event,

For Christ's sake, quote me on that.

You're reading what you want to read, not what I'm saying. I quoted, from your own fucking source, a poll that said that most Ukranians didn't believe it was a targeted genocide, not that it was natural. At no point did I argue it was natural.

and I just provided evidence that literally states that the majority of the Ukrainian population thinks that yes, the Holodomor was a deliberate genocide!

No, you didn't. You provided the same poll I quoted discussing that most Ukranians believe (correctly) that the famine was the fault of the Soviet government. You aren't reading your sources, and you aren't reading my posts. We're done here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You realize you can object to them in a civilized manner and still kill them if their crimes are deserving, yeah?

At the point when Nazis are literally rounding people up in camps and murdering them, that time has long gone. I'm not advocating for going out into the streets in the modern day and gunning down Nazis wherever you see them. Only that US soldiers who gunned down SS cunts who minutes beforehand were murdering people and trying to cover up their crimes did nothing morally wrong.

So should we not have had the Nuremberg Trials and just killed anyone and everyone we could get our hands on?

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not saying we can't kill Nazis I'm saying we can't carry out on the spot extrajudicial killings. You understand that in your scenario exactly as many people have been murdered by the Nazis? Just also you're a war criminal.

On the upside, there are fewer Nazis in the world.

So should we not have had the Nuremberg Trials and just killed anyone and everyone we could get our hands on?

No! Of course not!

I am completely in favor of making an example by making their trial and executions as public as possible. As I said previously, the men should've gotten a talking to about the importance of making examples instead of having localized killings. I just don't regard them being killed on the spot as any great loss.

I do regard the Nuremberg trials as far too lenient, though.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

We're done here.

Clearly, you are the winner of this argument. I bow to thee, great and almighty one.

But seriously? I endured you carrying on about how the Holodomor was actually an event that occurred across the entire Soviet Union (it actually wasn't), how international laws don't apply because the Romans did things differently back in B.C. (and also some totalitarian dictatorships don't play fair, so we should abandon all ethics and morality and descend to their level), and how the murder of millions somehow pales in comparison to a few thousand people dying, all the time with nothing to back you up. And now you end the argument because I misquoted you?

[Conserative Morality]

We're done here.

Clearly, you are the winner of this argument. I bow to thee, great and almighty one.

But seriously? I endured you carrying on about how the Holodomor was actually an event that occurred across the entire Soviet Union (it actually wasn't), how international laws don't apply because the Romans did things differently back in B.C. (and also some totalitarian dictatorships don't play fair, so we should abandon all ethics and morality and descend to their level), and how the murder of millions somehow pales in comparison to a few thousand people dying, all the time with nothing to back you up. And now you end the argument because I misquoted you?

"Misquoted"

Perhaps next time you argue with someone you will read their posts and respond to their actual points.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

"Misquoted"

Perhaps next time you argue with someone you will read their posts and respond to their actual points.

Perhaps next time you argue with someone you will provide sources instead of misremembering facts off the top of your head and avoid ad hominem.

[Conserative Morality]

Perhaps next time you argue with someone you will provide sources instead of misremembering facts off the top of your head and avoid ad hominem.

Why do I need to provide sources when my opponent provides sources that disproves my opponent's own argument?

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Why do I need to provide sources when my opponent provides sources that disproves my opponent's own argument?

Because you made unfounded claims even before we even began referencing that source, such as "the Holodomor occurred across all of the Soviet Union, not just Ukraine" and "international law doesn't apply to U.S. because we won." And none of what I referenced disproved my argument. You just ran circles around me trying to stretch what little information you bothered to read from the source into "hah, you totally just misunderstood me, I meant this all along and now your argument is in tatters." Provide your own sources to back up your claims, and don't cram a curse word into every sentence just because you're heated, and also make sure you don't become a hypocrite:

No, one who defends monsters is a monster. If you join the Wehrmacht and justify it with "Well, I didn't LIKE the Nazis, but they needed to be defended!", that's no defense at all.

"Fuck Nazis."

"Wow, STALIN, I didn't realize you were back from the grave!"

[Conserative Morality]

Why do I need to provide sources when my opponent provides sources that disproves my opponent's own argument?

Because you made unfounded claims even before we even began referencing that source, such as "the Holodomor occurred across all of the Soviet Union, not just Ukraine" and "international law doesn't apply to U.S. because we won."

I like how you continue to fail to understand my arguments despite being very simple.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

I like how you continue to fail to understand my arguments despite being very simple.

I like how you continue to ignore portions of my arguments despite being very simple. I would gladly go on, but we're done I've wasted enough time arguing with you and this thread has been thoroughly derailed. If anyone has any interest to, please continue debating the Dachau Massacre.

[Torrocca]

Hmm... what if one of the US GIs involved was an experienced judge in the rule of law, particularly regarding human rights, before serving in the army? Would suddenly having the very person around who administers sentences in regards to violations of the law, seeing this shit firsthand, make you lot feel better about the poor tragedy that befell these sympathetic SS volunteers from Hungary's Nazis who were clearly just so clean and good after murdering even more victims of their regime's decade-long Holocaust and attempting to murder US soldiers mere moments before surrendering?

[Des-Bal]

Hmm... what if one of the US GIs involved was an experienced judge in the rule of law, particularly regarding human rights, before serving in the army? Would suddenly having the very person around who administers sentences in regards to violations of the law, seeing this shit firsthand, make you lot feel better about the poor tragedy that befell these sympathetic ...

Yeah once again it's not about them being sympathetic.

[Torrocca]

Hmm... what if one of the US GIs involved was an experienced judge in the rule of law, particularly regarding human rights, before serving in the army? Would suddenly having the very person around who administers sentences in regards to violations of the law, seeing this shit firsthand, make you lot feel better about the poor tragedy that befell these sympathetic ...

Yeah once again it's not about them being sympathetic.

Regardless, would a judge among the impromptu firing squad have made this better for you? Hell, how about a whole damn courtroom, judge, jury, lawyers, bailiff, the whole nine yards?

[Des-Bal]

Regardless, would a judge among the impromptu firing squad have made this better for you? Hell, how about a whole damn courtroom, judge, jury, lawyers, bailiff, the whole nine yards?

The without the requisite formality simple presence of the necessary parties is insufficient.

[Uxupox]

Hmm... what if one of the US GIs involved was an experienced judge in the rule of law, particularly regarding human rights, before serving in the army? Would suddenly having the very person around who administers sentences in regards to violations of the law, seeing this shit firsthand, make you lot feel better about the poor tragedy that befell these sympathetic SS volunteers from Hungary's Nazis who were clearly just so clean and good after murdering even more victims of their regime's decade-long Holocaust and attempting to murder US soldiers mere moments before surrendering?

Almost no chance. The possibilities of a judge being slotted as an infantryman is literally impossible during WW2. They were either served in the JAG (Judge Advocates) or most likely not at all since they were exempt from the draft proper.

[Torrocca]

Regardless, would a judge among the impromptu firing squad have made this better for you? Hell, how about a whole damn courtroom, judge, jury, lawyers, bailiff, the whole nine yards?

The without the requisite formality simple presence of the necessary parties is insufficient.

So, it doesn't matter if all the evidence is right there, if the Nazis literally committed murder just mere moments before getting killed, or if there's a literal courtroom substituting for the GIs doing this, what matters is the fucking show of it all to come to the same damn conclusion anyone with half a brain could come to.

[Des-Bal]

So, it doesn't matter if all the evidence is right there, if the Nazis literally committed murder just mere moments before getting killed, or if there's a literal courtroom substituting for the GIs doing this, what matters is the fucking show of it all to come to the same damn conclusion anyone with half a brain could come to.

What matters is the decision to execute them following a procedure more coherent than "GI mad."

[Infected Mushroom]

The Dachau liberation reprisals were a series of incidents in which German prisoners of war were killed by American soldiers and concentration camp internees at the Dachau concentration camp on April 29, 1945, during World War II. It is unclear how many SS members were killed in the incident but most estimates place the number killed at around 35–50. In the days before the camp's liberation SS guards at the camp had forced 7,000 inmates on a death march that resulted in the murder of many from exposure and shooting.[1] When Allied soldiers liberated the camp, their reactions varied from being shocked, horrified, disturbed, and angered by the masses of dead they found and the combativeness of some of the remaining German guards who had initially fired on them and had refused to surrender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_li ... _reprisals

"American soldiers executed dozens of German guards at the Dachau WWII concentration camp after screaming: 'Let's get those Nazi dogs!'

The US troops opened fire on 50 members of the SS and the Wehrmacht with a machine gun after lining them up and saying: 'Take no prisoners!'

One commander shot dead four other Germans and became so hysterical that his own colonel had to hit him with the butt of his gun to stop him battering a fifth."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -book.html

---

It's 1945. The war is coming to its end, and American troops stumble upon the Dachau Concentration Camp. What they find leaves them horrified; thousands of corpses littering the camp and thousands more of imprisoned men women and children clinging to life.

Out of utter disgust and anger, the GIs line up the SS guards and begin shooting them. Other Nazis are beaten to a pulp. Even the prisoners jump in and beat their former captives to death.

After the incident, the event was put under investigation as a possible war crime, with court martials being considered for the GIs who took part. Nevertheless, these charges were dropped by General Patton, who burned the papers and believed that the men had done nothing wrong.

---

Were the GIs guilty of their crimes, and if so, should they have been punished by the law? Or did the SS prison guards deserve their fate as the staff of a concentration camp and mass murderers?

I personally am under the impression that while technically illegal, what the GIs did was the norm in the Eastern and Pacific theaters, where the Geneva and Hague Conventions meant absolutely nothing to those fighting. In major conflicts, all laws of war go out the window and the war becomes a matter of kill or be killed. In the event of the Dachau massacre, it is impossible to feel sympathy for the SS, and quite frankly, I believe they deserved it. If you are going to act like a savage animal, you will be treated like a savage animal.

Could they have awaited trial and execution later on? Perhaps, though how many would escape, commit suicide, have their charges dropped, or even be given light sentences?

This shows that the USA has no moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Especially when added up with Jim Crow and Japanese internment.

[Des-Bal]

This shows that the USA has no moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Especially when added up with Jim Crow and Japanese internment.

If the United States killed 3 million Jews it would still have the moral high ground over Nazi Germany. These are not equivalent acts.

[Torrocca]

The Dachau liberation reprisals were a series of incidents in which German prisoners of war were killed by American soldiers and concentration camp internees at the Dachau concentration camp on April 29, 1945, during World War II. It is unclear how many SS members were killed in the incident but most estimates place the number killed at around 35–50. In the days before the camp's liberation SS guards at the camp had forced 7,000 inmates on a death march that resulted in the murder of many from exposure and shooting.[1] When Allied soldiers liberated the camp, their reactions varied from being shocked, horrified, disturbed, and angered by the masses of dead they found and the combativeness of some of the remaining German guards who had initially fired on them and had refused to surrender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_li ... _reprisals

"American soldiers executed dozens of German guards at the Dachau WWII concentration camp after screaming: 'Let's get those Nazi dogs!'

The US troops opened fire on 50 members of the SS and the Wehrmacht with a machine gun after lining them up and saying: 'Take no prisoners!'

One commander shot dead four other Germans and became so hysterical that his own colonel had to hit him with the butt of his gun to stop him battering a fifth."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -book.html

---

It's 1945. The war is coming to its end, and American troops stumble upon the Dachau Concentration Camp. What they find leaves them horrified; thousands of corpses littering the camp and thousands more of imprisoned men women and children clinging to life.

Out of utter disgust and anger, the GIs line up the SS guards and begin shooting them. Other Nazis are beaten to a pulp. Even the prisoners jump in and beat their former captives to death.

After the incident, the event was put under investigation as a possible war crime, with court martials being considered for the GIs who took part. Nevertheless, these charges were dropped by General Patton, who burned the papers and believed that the men had done nothing wrong.

---

Were the GIs guilty of their crimes, and if so, should they have been punished by the law? Or did the SS prison guards deserve their fate as the staff of a concentration camp and mass murderers?

I personally am under the impression that while technically illegal, what the GIs did was the norm in the Eastern and Pacific theaters, where the Geneva and Hague Conventions meant absolutely nothing to those fighting. In major conflicts, all laws of war go out the window and the war becomes a matter of kill or be killed. In the event of the Dachau massacre, it is impossible to feel sympathy for the SS, and quite frankly, I believe they deserved it. If you are going to act like a savage animal, you will be treated like a savage animal.

Could they have awaited trial and execution later on? Perhaps, though how many would escape, commit suicide, have their charges dropped, or even be given light sentences?

This shows that the USA has no moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Especially when added up with Jim Crow and Japanese internment.

IM, c'mon. The USA didn't genocide ~17 million and start a world war that killed ~70 million.

So, it doesn't matter if all the evidence is right there, if the Nazis literally committed murder just mere moments before getting killed, or if there's a literal courtroom substituting for the GIs doing this, what matters is the fucking show of it all to come to the same damn conclusion anyone with half a brain could come to.

What matters is the decision to execute them following a procedure more coherent than "GI mad."

I'm pretty sure the procedure that led up to the deaths of those SS guards was more coherent than "GI mad." I'm pretty sure it was more along the lines of, "these GIs saw clear, obvious, irrefutable evidence of an industrialized atrocity committed in part by these SS concentration camp guards volunteering from Hungary's pool of Nazis, including murders right before their very eyes even as they tried to get the Nazi guards to surrender, and reasonably came to the conclusion that they needed to be punished for their crimes against humanity."

[Uxupox]

This shows that the USA has no moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Especially when added up with Jim Crow and Japanese internment.

IM, c'mon. The USA didn't genocide ~17 million and start a world war that killed ~70 million.

What matters is the decision to execute them following a procedure more coherent than "GI mad."

I'm pretty sure the procedure that led up to the deaths of those SS guards was more coherent than "GI mad." I'm pretty sure it was more along the lines of, "these GIs saw clear, obvious, irrefutable evidence of an industrialized atrocity committed in part by these SS concentration camp guards volunteering from Hungary's pool of Nazis, including murders right before their very eyes even as they tried to get the Nazi guards to surrender, and reasonably came to the conclusion that they needed to be punished for their crimes against humanity."

That isn't their decision to make according to the law of land warfare however.

[Des-Bal]

I'm pretty sure the procedure that led up to the deaths of those SS guards was more coherent than "GI mad." I'm pretty sure it was more along the lines of, "these GIs saw clear, obvious, irrefutable evidence of an industrialized atrocity committed in part by these SS concentration camp guards volunteering from Hungary's pool of Nazis, including murders right before their very eyes even as they tried to get the Nazi guards to surrender, and reasonably came to the conclusion that they needed to be punished for their crimes against humanity."

No, it was closer to GI Mad. When superiors are clubbing their subordinates with a rifles because they've executed four prisoners and have moved on to beating men to death you are not dealing with a reasoned procedure.

[Torrocca]

IM, c'mon. The USA didn't genocide ~17 million and start a world war that killed ~70 million.



I'm pretty sure the procedure that led up to the deaths of those SS guards was more coherent than "GI mad." I'm pretty sure it was more along the lines of, "these GIs saw clear, obvious, irrefutable evidence of an industrialized atrocity committed in part by these SS concentration camp guards volunteering from Hungary's pool of Nazis, including murders right before their very eyes even as they tried to get the Nazi guards to surrender, and reasonably came to the conclusion that they needed to be punished for their crimes against humanity."

That isn't their decision to make according to the law of land warfare however.

Seemed like it was according to Patton after an investigation by the Army into the matter.

[Frievolk]

IM, c'mon. The USA didn't genocide ~17 million and start a world war that killed ~70 million.



I'm pretty sure the procedure that led up to the deaths of those SS guards was more coherent than "GI mad." I'm pretty sure it was more along the lines of, "these GIs saw clear, obvious, irrefutable evidence of an industrialized atrocity committed in part by these SS concentration camp guards volunteering from Hungary's pool of Nazis, including murders right before their very eyes even as they tried to get the Nazi guards to surrender, and reasonably came to the conclusion that they needed to be punished for their crimes against humanity."

That isn't their decision to make according to the law of land warfare however.

Wartime law only makes sense when applied to an enemy that isn't following a policy such as War of Annihilation, where "no consideration could be taken of International law."
As said above, international law isn't really law, because it has no actual form of judiciary (and force) behind it, exceptional cases ignored. If your enemy is specifically fighting a war where "no consideration could be taken of International law", you're no longer obliged to obey it either.