NationStates Jolt Archive

I just found this article (http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/3748/_es_gab_eben_auch_charakterlumpen.html). It's in German, but very interesting.

Essentially it is centred around the question: should all people who have been convicted as traitors during WWII by the German government and military be rehabilitated? The Left and Green Parties in Germany are in favour, the conservative CDU (and their Social Democratic coalition partner) isn't.

The Constitutional Court decided in 2002 to throw out all convictions of desertion, but actual treason (where one does something to actively help the other side) is a separate matter.

Where do you stand? Is it acceptable to do something that may get your fellow soldiers killed, if it means shortening the war or hurting a government that was a genocidal dictatorship?

It should depend on the grounds.
If you were doing these acts because you saw the holocaust happening, and had to resist by any means then it would be good. Otherwise if you were just selling out your country for profit and personal gain then the charge still stands.

I think they should leave it be. You'd have to evaluate the motives on a case by case basis. Which would be difficult if not impossible, time consuming and expensive. I presume those accused of such crimes were killed? If they aren't alive anymore, there can hardly be any redress in the form of compensation and clearing them would be only symbolic, and really not worth the cost of investigating.

I think they should leave it be. You'd have to evaluate the motives on a case by case basis. Which would be difficult if not impossible, time consuming and expensive. I presume those accused of such crimes were killed? If they aren't alive anymore, there can hardly be any redress in the form of compensation and clearing them would be only symbolic, and really not worth the cost of investigating.

let the families bring it up with evidence in the form of personal correspondence or journal entries on a case by case basis.
not for compensation, but so their names can be be restored to honor. Justice should not be limited by price.

It should depend on the grounds.
That's essentially the current system, which the Grand Coalition is supporting. There are laws and past judgements that mean that those who worked to help people suffering from prosecution by the regime get rehabilitation with no troubles. But a book recently came out that detailed the stories of some people convicted of treason, and so it came out into public debate with the opposition essentially calling for a blanket removal of all sentences.

I just figured it was an interesting ethical issue to look at. For example, if the current Iraqi government were to hang someone for treason for having told US troops military secrets during the invasion, would they be justified?

what like helping the Russians kinda treason?

I can't say I agree with it treason gets people killed regardless of if your the baddies

That's essentially the current system, which the Grand Coalition is supporting. There are laws and past judgements that mean that those who worked to help people suffering from prosecution by the regime get rehabilitation with no troubles. But a book recently came out that detailed the stories of some people convicted of treason, and so it came out into public debate with the opposition essentially calling for a blanket removal of all sentences.

I just figured it was an interesting ethical issue to look at. For example, if the current Iraqi government were to hang someone for treason for having told US troops military secrets during the invasion, would they be justified?

did the German government after WWII(not the one during Hitler) actually prosecute anyone for treason? don't think the post WWII government should have prosecuted anyone, because they did not exist at the time the crime was committed.
I think even if it wasn't directly to help anyone, but just because they felt the current regime had become unconscionable.

did the German government after WWII(not the one during Hitler) actually prosecute anyone for treason? don't think the post WWII government should have prosecuted anyone, because they did not exist at the time the crime was committed.
I don't thing the government did any prosecuting, but society certainly did. The families of people convicted of treason, or those convicted themselves if they somehow made it back alive, usually suffered quite a bit, being made social outcasts and so on. The Fifties in Germany were not a happy time, and to some degree the feeling of the Federal Republic having to "make up" for the Nazi era is in part because it did basically no making up back in the years immediately after the war.

I think even if it wasn't directly to help anyone, but just because they felt the current regime had become unconscionable.
Well yes, but if you end up going to the other side and telling them where your position is, with the result that this position gets bombed and the soldiers lose their lives, what about those victims? You may have directly caused their deaths. Does one's disagreement with the regime justify that?

I don't thing the government did any prosecuting, but society certainly did. The families of people convicted of treason, or those convicted themselves if they somehow made it back alive, usually suffered quite a bit, being made social outcasts and so on. The Fifties in Germany were not a happy time, and to some degree the feeling of the Federal Republic having to "make up" for the Nazi era is in part because it did basically no making up back in the years immediately after the war.

European history is not my focus. but this explains a lot.


Well yes, but if you end up going to the other side and telling them where your position is, with the result that this position gets bombed and the soldiers lose their lives, what about those victims? You may have directly caused their deaths. Does one's disagreement with the regime justify that?
Its war. there is no guarantee that his information lead to the bombing.
If I were in that position (id have to see some pretty Effed up shit like gitmo X 1 million) I would personally not speak for about 2 weeks, just to lessen the likelihood of the soldiers i personally worked with getting hit by the bombs.

I just found this article (http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/3748/_es_gab_eben_auch_charakterlumpen.html). It's in German, but very interesting.

Essentially it is centred around the question: should all people who have been convicted as traitors during WWII by the German government and military be rehabilitated? The Left and Green Parties in Germany are in favour, the conservative CDU (and their Social Democratic coalition partner) isn't.

The Constitutional Court decided in 2002 to throw out all convictions of desertion, but actual treason (where one does something to actively help the other side) is a separate matter.

Where do you stand? Is it acceptable to do something that may get your fellow soldiers killed, if it means shortening the war or hurting a government that was a genocidal dictatorship?

Depends why they did it. If you believe that Nazis are un-German it's not treachery, if you believe you'll get a cushy job after the war or the like, you're a tout.

It should depend on the grounds.
If you were doing these acts because you saw the holocaust happening, and had to resist by any means then it would be good. Otherwise if you were just selling out your country for profit and personal gain then the charge still stands.
That's how these cases have been handled so far, and I believe that's how they should be handled in the future as well.

If you had good reason for your actions, your name could, can and will be cleared easily. If not, you don't deserve rehabilitation.
I think they should leave it be. You'd have to evaluate the motives on a case by case basis. Which would be difficult if not impossible, time consuming and expensive. I presume those accused of such crimes were killed? If they aren't alive anymore, there can hardly be any redress in the form of compensation and clearing them would be only symbolic, and really not worth the cost of investigating.
If one's family is interested in having their name cleared, their case will be looked into seperately. Otherwise, you're right - too expensive and time consuming. And a general rehabilitation for treachery is different from the general rehabilitation for desertion already established in 2002.

They're just talking about this now?!? ANybody still in prison has got to be what? At least in their late seventies, early eighties? What's to debate? Even if you let em go, they're not going to move very fast. ;)

I just found this article (http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/3748/_es_gab_eben_auch_charakterlumpen.html). It's in German, but very interesting.

Essentially it is centred around the question: should all people who have been convicted as traitors during WWII by the German government and military be rehabilitated? The Left and Green Parties in Germany are in favour, the conservative CDU (and their Social Democratic coalition partner) isn't.

The Constitutional Court decided in 2002 to throw out all convictions of desertion, but actual treason (where one does something to actively help the other side) is a separate matter.

Where do you stand? Is it acceptable to do something that may get your fellow soldiers killed, if it means shortening the war or hurting a government that was a genocidal dictatorship?


They outta make another memorial for them, like the one they made for the July 20 Plotters.

Errr... a bit late in the day for this no?

Slow day for the Bundestag?

They're just talking about this now?!? ANybody still in prison has got to be what? At least in their late seventies, early eighties? What's to debate? Even if you let em go, they're not going to move very fast. ;)
Prison? For treason? In Nazi Germany? Really?!?

No, my friend, those people didn't go to prison. And if they did, only temporarily before they were executed.

This is about correcting injustice. But whereas deserters of the Wehrmacht (conscript army serving a bad cause...) were rehabilitated collectively in 2002, some opposition parties have now raised the question whether to do this to traitors as well.

And not all of those who were convicted for treason had altruistic or noble motives. Therefore, handling the matter case by case, as it is done now, should remain the norm.

They outta make another memorial for them, like the one they made for the July 20 Plotters.
Nay.

Does 'rehabilitated' have a different meaning in Germany? :confused:

Does 'rehabilitated' have a different meaning in Germany? :confused:

its actually all an elaborate ruse to send the veterans back in time to save the Führer from being assassinated in 1944

its actually all an elaborate ruse to send the veterans back in time to save the Führer from being assassinated in 1944

He died in 1945.

:eek:

Oh shit! It worked!

lol owned by the Clown on a historical detail :D

He died in 1945.

:eek:

Oh shit! It worked!

its actually all an elaborate ruse to send the veterans back in time to save the Führer from being assassinated in 1944

Yeah, throw out the convictions. The Third Reich was based upon criminal activities and injustice from the very beginning. Someone who betrayed the Nazis is as guilty or as innocent as an ex-Mafioso who sells out his former partners-in-crime to the police, no matter if the motives are noble or selfish.

The court system in Nazi Germany was politically tainted. Judges set down sentences according to what the government wanted, not what was truthful or just.

Not only convictions for treason but ALL convictions under that regime should be voided as unsafe.

what like helping the Russians kinda treason?

I can't say I agree with it treason gets people killed regardless of if your the baddies

Even if the baddies are genocidal maniacs with no regard to human life?

I can make an exception this time around...

Where do you stand? Is it acceptable to do something that may get your fellow soldiers killed, if it means shortening the war or hurting a government that was a genocidal dictatorship?

Yes. Screw the soldiers, genocide must be prevented. If a country is doing bad things, it must be stopped. If stopping it kills some of its solciers, screw them, they shouldn't be working for such a regime in the first place.

Well yes, but if you end up going to the other side and telling them where your position is, with the result that this position gets bombed and the soldiers lose their lives, what about those victims? You may have directly caused their deaths. Does one's disagreement with the regime justify that?

Yes, considering the depravity of the regime, and the fact that the allies were better in comparison, even the commies.

Well yes, but if you end up going to the other side and telling them where your position is, with the result that this position gets bombed and the soldiers lose their lives, what about those victims? You may have directly caused their deaths. Does one's disagreement with the regime justify that?

Considering that military successes for the Allies were good things? Yes.

People get killed in war. The right thing to do in the case of World War II was to fight against Germany with the available means. People who did so should not be punished simply because they were themselves German.

Considering that military successes for the Allies were good things? Yes.

People get killed in war. The right thing to do in the case of World War II was to fight against Germany with the available means. People who did so should not be punished simply because they were themselves German.


While they were the lesser evil. Were the military success of the Allies really a "good" thing? All propaganda and chest-beating aside.

Post-1945. The Allies were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of roughly 10-12 million innocent civilians, of which 2 million died in said cleansing. Another 2 million died in "Operation Keelhaul," in what is one of the most shaming episodes in British/American history (1945-47). This already is a murder/killing of almost 4 million men/women/children by the allied powers directly post-WW2. Hardly the actions of something I'd describe as "good." Perhaps it was militarily necessary. But you'll never convince me the murder of 4 million people is anything but bad. Also the early conditions of various tenants of the Morgenthau plan and it's effects in 1947 would today be considered draconian and inhumane in the extreme as it led willingly to the assisted murder of tens of thousands of babies by purposely depriving them of medical aid. Now whether said things were justified or are morally defensible is a topic for another thread.

However how is it not treason, when you give logistic/tactical/military support to an enemy that is indiscriminately firebombing your cities (murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians), ethnically cleansing millions of your people and is proclaiming the destruction of your nation as a national entity as it's endgoal? Treason is treason. These men committed what is considered among the most despicable crimes an individual can commit, they betrayed their honor, homeland, family and friends. They should remain traitors in the historical annals and be treated with just as much contempt as the criminal government they served prior to their treason.

Post-1945. The Allies were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of roughly 10-12 million innocent civilians, of which 2 million died in said cleansing.

And that is worse than the Holocaust how? Plus, most of that was the Russians, who weren't really part of the Allies per se, more sort of Allies of circumstance.

While they were the lesser evil. Were the military success of the Allies really a "good" thing?

Yes. Because they were the "lesser evil", at worst.

However how is it not treason, when you give logistic/tactical/military support to an enemy that is indiscriminately firebombing your cities (murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians), ethnically cleansing millions of your people and is proclaiming the destruction of your nation as a national entity as it's endgoal?

Because that enemy needs to win to stop a violent, murderous aggressor from carrying out its dangerously successful expansionist policies.

It may even have been "treason", in a certain sense of the word, but so what? Treason against the Nazi regime was a good thing.

Treason is treason. These men committed what is considered among the most despicable crimes an individual can commit, they betrayed their honor, homeland, family and friends.

Spare me the tribalist trash. It's nauseating.

And that is worse than the Holocaust how? Plus, most of that was the Russians, who weren't really part of the Allies per se, more sort of Allies of circumstance.


You are morally despicable. So we have to compare tragedies now to decide one tragedy is "gooder" than the other? There is no such thing as both the Axis and Allies being bad? The Axis win out in brutality. But truly, the difference between 11 million and 4 million is academic no? At least one side justly admits it's wrong and tries to repent for it's crimes. Whilst the other side tries to either cover theirs up or refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Also how were they not part of the Allies? The US sent them quite a bit in terms of material and logistical support. Sounds like a close ally to me. That they later came to blows on how to divide up conquered territory does not really erase history. However correct me if I am wrong. But wasn't it Roosevelt's and Churchill's signature that was on the Yalta Agreement which led to the ethnic cleansing of tens of millions, alongside with the death of millions? I am sure Roosevelt and Churchill, if there is a hell, burn right alongside despicable men such as Hitler for signing said Agreement and condemning millions to death.


Yes. Because they were the "lesser evil", at worst.


No argument there. The Axis were as a rule worse (in some cases a lot worse) than the Allies from a moral, humanistic and ethical point of view.



Because that enemy needs to win to stop a violent, murderous aggressor from carrying out its dangerously successful expansionist policies.

It may even have been "treason", in a certain sense of the word, but so what? Treason against the Nazi regime was a good thing.


So you agree it was treason? So why bother cleaning the names of the men who then committed it? Their title befits their crime no? Treason is treason, regardless of motivation.



Spare me the tribalist trash. It's nauseating.

Each to their own.

Oh shit! It worked!

psst wait till you see the fall of the USSR :wink:

Someone who betrayed the Nazis is as guilty or as innocent as an ex-Mafioso who sells out his former partners-in-crime to the police, no matter if the motives are noble or selfish.

but in this case treason wasn't just the betrayal on the Nazi's was it in many cases on the eastern front German troops fought tooth and nail for the evacuation of civilians from the red army

Even if the baddies are genocidal maniacs with no regard to human life?

all Germans in WWII where genocidal maniacs *nods*

It should depend on the grounds.
If you were doing these acts because you saw the holocaust happening, and had to resist by any means then it would be good. Otherwise if you were just selling out your country for profit and personal gain then the charge still stands.

^^^this...I think you would have to be able to prove it wasnt for personal gain in the matter...

they shouldn't be working for such a regime in the first place.

Like they had a choice?

If it was to help end the war against that psychotic government, then I don't think that those convictions should be kept.

Like they had a choice?

Well, he did say they could have rebelled or desserted in Iraq, I assume he applies same principle here, lol...

If stopping it kills some of its solciers, screw them, they shouldn't be working for such a regime in the first place.
You hopefully do know that refusing to be drafted into the Wehrmacht or trying to leave it meant that you went straight to concentration camp or summary execution, right?

So you agree it was treason? So why bother cleaning the names of the men who then committed it?

Because, morally speaking, they committed no crime.

Just like the deserters, who have already been cleared.

You hopefully do know that refusing to be drafted into the Wehrmacht or trying to leave it meant that you went straight to concentration camp or summary execution, right?

And fighting for a bad cause that kills people makes you a target by people who are trying to improve the world. Sorry, it's just how it goes.

Sorry, it's just how it goes.
It must be nice living in your black/white world.

Because, morally speaking, they committed no crime.

Just like the deserters, who have already been cleared.

Yet their treason could have led to the deaths of thousands of civilians on the East Front, that the Wehrmacht was supportingly evacuating. How is that not morally committing a crime?

Yet their treason could have led to the deaths of thousands of civilians on the East Front, that the Wehrmacht was supportingly evacuating. How is that not morally committing a crime?
Yeah, that's the next complication in the debate. It's relatively easy to say that the death of German soldiers caused by one's treason is justifiable, but does the same go for harm done to civilians as a result?

all Germans in WWII where genocidal maniacs *nods*

Never said that. By baddies I'm implying Hitler's army/regime. You know, the army that these so-called traitors were being treasonous against.

Throwing out the convictions is a good start, but anyone who turned against Nazi Germany deserves a medal and a large cash sum.

Like they had a choice?

Yes. Desertion, or better yet open revolt.

Desertion, or better yet open revolt.
The state machinery aligned against such action was incredibly powerful.

It's very easy to sit back and declare that one should desert or revolt against a totalitarian regime; another thing entirely to do so.

Moreover, many German military personal were, if not supportive of the extremes of Nazi ideology, supportive of greater German power in Europe. They might not support some fabricated racial superiority, but many were highly supportive of a new German Empire.

Yes. Screw the soldiers, genocide must be prevented. If a country is doing bad things, it must be stopped. If stopping it kills some of its solciers, screw them, they shouldn't be working for such a regime in the first place.

The vast majority of Germans didn't realize what was going on. in their view they were expanding into traditional Germans areas and then counter attacking against the groups trying to stop them.

The vast majority of Germans didn't realize what was going on. in their view they were expanding into traditional Germans areas and then counter attacking against the groups trying to stop them.

HA! A likely story...Next youll be saying Cubans were rebelling against a Dictatorial Regime...ludicrous...

Yeah, that's the next complication in the debate. It's relatively easy to say that the death of German soldiers caused by one's treason is justifiable, but does the same go for harm done to civilians as a result?

Were the deaths of civilians directly cause by the treason or incidental? Also, given how popular Hitler and the Nazis were to the population it doesn't help that the German civilians were in part responsible for the abuses of the Nazis?

Were the deaths of civilians directly cause by the treason or incidental? Also, given how popular Hitler and the Nazis were to the population it doesn't help that the German civilians were in part responsible for the abuses of the Nazis?
One could for example help the Soviets break through a position more quickly, thereby catching up to a convoy of fleeing civilians.

One could for example help the Soviets break through a position more quickly, thereby catching up to a convoy of fleeing civilians.

Was that the express purpose of letting the Soviets break through or was it so that they would eliminate every nazi soldier? Did the soviets kill the civilians or what?

Also, given how popular Hitler and the Nazis were to the population it doesn't help that the German civilians were in part responsible for the abuses of the Nazis?
If we're going to go down that route, then we can blame the signatories of the Versailles treaty for the Nazi atrocities.

And so on and so forth.

Was that the express purpose of letting the Soviets break through or was it so that they would eliminate every nazi soldier? Did the soviets kill the civilians or what?
Generally, when the Soviets (particularly the rear-guard troops) caught up with civilians, things turned nasty, particularly for the women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities#Germany

If we're going to go down that route, then we can blame the signatories of the Versailles treaty for the Nazi atrocities.

And so on and so forth.

The signatories of the Versailles treaty frequently are blamed for WWII and all the atrocities created, and many Germans have felt collective guilt for Nazi crimes for decades.


Generally, when the Soviets (particularly the rear-guard troops) caught up with civilians, things turned nasty, particularly for the women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities#Germany

It doesn't help the Nazis delayed civilian evacuation for fear of lowering morale, but how many Germans betrayed the army for the express purpose of killing/mutilating/raping Germans or were callous enough to try? Also, how many, if any, of these Germans were tried?

It doesn't help the Nazis delayed civilian evacuation for fear of lowering morale, but how many Germans betrayed the army for the express purpose of killing/mutilating/raping Germans or were callous enough to try? Also, how many, if any, of these Germans were tried?
Well, I'm not talking in terms of practical examples, but just in terms of the general question: would for example showing the Soviets some hidden path around a position, thereby shortening the war, be justified if it also meant that those troops march into the next town and commit war crimes there? Would you be betraying the trust that these civilians put into you to protect them if necessary?

The vast majority of Germans didn't realize what was going on. in their view they were expanding into traditional Germans areas and then counter attacking against the groups trying to stop them.
Err no I think most Germans would've realised that this was laughable Nazi propaganda. They're not stupid you know.

Honestly, most of those Germans in WWII who committed "treason" were doing what they did for the sake of SAVING Germany.

That's not exactly treason, at least in my humble opinion.

Yes. Because they were the "lesser evil", at worst.

Hahaha. The Soviets were just as bad, if not worse, than the Nazis. And the Western Allies were only slightly better. This "We're so good, we saved the world from the ebil Germans" charade is getting a little old, don't you think?

If a highly moral alien race landed on Earth during WWII, they would have just killed all the scum; Nazi, Soviet and Allied alike.

Err no I think most Germans would've realised that this was laughable Nazi propaganda. They're not stupid you know.

they might have realized the jew's property was being seized and they were being deported. to think they were all being roasted in the oven was likely a bit much.

It should depend on the grounds.
If you were doing these acts because you saw the holocaust happening, and had to resist by any means then it would be good. Otherwise if you were just selling out your country for profit and personal gain then the charge still stands.

Reasonable, though I selected the "throw out all convictions".
That's because:
1.the Nazi law was anyway unacceptable by democratic standards, HENCE it was morally right to refuse Nazi orders even if this meant desertion or treason.
2.presumption of innocence and favor rei; I think that it should be the prosecutor's job to find out if the deserter/traitor was selling out his country/fellows just for personal gain, and, if this is proven, to refuse rehabilitation.

Hahaha. The Soviets were just as bad, if not worse, than the Nazis. And the Western Allies were only slightly better. This "We're so good, we saved the world from the ebil Germans" charade is getting a little old, don't you think?

If a highly moral alien race landed on Earth during WWII, they would have just killed all the scum; Nazi, Soviet and Allied alike.

I quite like how Ferrous Oxide's definition of 'highly moral' involves indiscriminate killing.

I quite like how Ferrous Oxide's definition of 'highly moral' involves indiscriminate killing.

There is a 'too dangerous to let live" point, and humans hit it about 12000 years back.

Any soldier of officer without political ambitions - serving Germany as a patriot, not a zealot - should be exonerated. Any politically motivated man - SS officers, for example - should not.

Any soldier of officer without political ambitions - serving Germany as a patriot, not a zealot - should be exonerated. Any politically motivated man - SS officers, for example - should not.

Reasonable - though here we're talking about german soldiers who were blamed by the Nazi authorities as "deserters" or "traitors", not about all german soldiers in WW2.

The point is that both German post-war states didn't rehabilitate automatically those who were blamed or executed by the Nazi as deserters, or traitors. This is seen by some people as a sort of lack of a complete refusal of the Nazi period by modern Germany. Other people claim that treason is treason, and one should stick to his own country anyway.

By the way, what you say above echoes the soviet standard official policy about german prisoners. Wehrmacht => war prisoners, SS & GeStaPo => execution on the spot.

let the families bring it up with evidence in the form of personal correspondence or journal entries on a case by case basis.
not for compensation, but so their names can be be restored to honor. Justice should not be limited by price.

Thats not a bad idea. It should limit the number of cases by requiering good evidence, factored against the States evidence of treason (which may be invalid now that the NSDAP isn't in power).

Also, absolutely not for material compensation. The honor of clearing your name is worth a trial (if, indeed the name genuinely carries the honor)... and honor should be quite seperate from money.

Also, absolutely not for material compensation. The honor of clearing your name is worth a trial (if, indeed the name genuinely carries the honor)... and honor should be quite seperate from money.

Meh. The widows and the orphans of those tried and executed for treason/desertion by the Nazis didn't receive by the post-war German states any kind of war pensions, iirc; the families of the other German soldiers who were KIA/MIA/WIA during WW2 did, though.

If those people are rehabilitated, there should be some sort of monetary compensation, too, at least for the widows (which are likely to be pretty few nowadays).

Meh. The widows and the orphans of those tried and executed for treason/desertion by the Nazis didn't receive by the post-war German states any kind of war pensions, iirc; the families of the other German soldiers who were KIA/MIA/WIA during WW2 did, though.

If those people are rehabilitated, there should be some sort of monetary compensation, too, at least for the widows (which are likely to be pretty few nowadays).

there comes a point where compensation is silly. If you've managed to make it these 60-70 years with out compensation no need to start now.

there comes a point where compensation is silly. If you've managed to make it these 60-70 years with out compensation no need to start now.

No need maybe: still it would be just, better late than never (expecially for an old widow, potentially not quite rich).

they might have realized the jew's property was being seized and they were being deported. to think they were all being roasted in the oven was likely a bit much.
And I would personally maintain that most Germans probably did know what was going on and chose to ignore it when their own lives were so shitty by late 1943 and onwards.

Saying "My country, right or wrong." is like saying "My husband, raping my 6-year old or not.".

Saying "My country, right or wrong." is like saying "My husband, raping my 6-year old or not.".
Wha...?

Wha...?

The notion that it's treasonous and evil to oppose your country, by whatever means, when it commits atrocities, is like the notion that you should stick by your spouse no matter what crime they commit in the house.

The notion that it's treasonous and evil to oppose your country, by whatever means, when it commits atrocities, is like the notion that you should stick by your spouse no matter what crime they commit in the house.
Ahhh, I sees.

Somebody mentioned that the German traitors didn't only endager the lives of Nazi criminals but also of innocent German civilians. This might be true, but on the other hand, there were also millions of innocent civilians in the death camps and the occupied territories. By betraying the German military and thereby accelerating Allied victory they may have saved the lives of people who whouldn't have survived the war if Nazi Germany had holded on a couple of weeks/months longer.

Never said that. By baddies I'm implying Hitler's army/regime. You know, the army that these so-called traitors were being treasonous against.

the German army? the one who's job it was to defend the German people?

HENCE it was morally right to refuse Nazi orders even if this meant desertion or treason.

however this wasn't just a case of refusing orders as that would come under desertion

By betraying the German military and thereby accelerating Allied victory they may have saved the lives of people who whouldn't have survived the war if Nazi Germany had holded on a couple of weeks/months longer.

and they might of cost countless civilian casualties either way looking at the results is irrelevant as its the act and motives itself that is on question

the German army? the one who's job it was to defend the German people?

I support this:
The notion that it's treasonous and evil to oppose your country, by whatever means, when it commits atrocities, is like the notion that you should stick by your spouse no matter what crime they commit in the house.

The German civilians were in an unfortunate position. Just like those in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

On that note, do you support the dropping of the nuclear bomb on those cities?

On that note, do you support the dropping of the nuclear bomb on those cities?

Nope. Especially because the purpose of the bomb was merely to inform the Russians that the US had them. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were but test subjects.

I support this:

yeah protecting civilians is stupid isn't it

Nope. Especially because the purpose of the bomb was merely to inform the Russians that the US had them.

and end the war following the failings of the Potsdam Declaration

yeah protecting civilians is stupid isn't it



and end the war following the failings of the Potsdam Declaration

So then by your way of thinking if the pilot of the bomber carrying one of the bombs decided to drop it in the ocean, thus sparing millions of lives, he should be strung up/lynched the moment he landed just because he's a traitor?

So then by your way of thinking if the pilot of the bomber carrying one of the bombs decided to drop it in the ocean, thus sparing millions of lives, he should be strung up/lynched the moment he landed just because he's a traitor?

lol wut?

I think it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There probably were real, actual traitors who committed acts deleterious to the safety of Germany and its people during that period.

As a result, their conviction for treason would have been justified regardless of the regime in power, and the same is true of people arrested by the Stasi during the GDR era. Of course, in situations like this defining "treason" in the first place is the hard part. What constituted treason during wartime in Nazi Germany probably isn't quite the same as it was under the GDR/FRG or modern-day, post Cold War Germany.

Nope. Especially because the purpose of the bomb was merely to inform the Russians that the US had them. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were but test subjects.

Clearly, you know nothing of what you speak.

Clearly, you know nothing of what you speak.

Yours to prove.

and end the war following the failings of the Potsdam Declaration

That could be done by tossing the bombs somewhere uninhabited.

That could be done by tossing the bombs somewhere uninhabited.

where nobody would have seen it?

where nobody would have seen it?

Film one hit, send the tape to Japan, tell them "next goes in Tokyo if you don't sign a peace treaty".

Done.

Hell, uninhabited doesn't mean people don't go to it. an uninhabited part fairly close to Tokyo, for instance.

Well, I'm not talking in terms of practical examples, but just in terms of the general question: would for example showing the Soviets some hidden path around a position, thereby shortening the war, be justified if it also meant that those troops march into the next town and commit war crimes there? Would you be betraying the trust that these civilians put into you to protect them if necessary?

Only if the person who showed them the path had cause to believe the Soviet soldiers were going to commit war crimes.

Film one hit, send the tape to Japan, tell them "next goes in Tokyo if you don't sign a peace treaty".

Done.

Hell, uninhabited doesn't mean people don't go to it. an uninhabited part fairly close to Tokyo, for instance.

Or, you know, they could do what the history book said and crush their will to fight >.>

Yours to prove.

Mine to show. The detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily to end the war without the necessity of a US invasion of Japan by conventional means - Operation Olympic. They were not experimental in nature - the experimental bomb was used in the Trinity test. Both Fat Man and Little Boy were what we would now call "Beta Test" models - units you know work, but may not be perfect designs for mass production.

The US was prepared to finish the war via invasion of the Home Islands of Japan, but they had a very good idea of what that would cost them in men, materials and wealth, not to mention what it was going to do to the Japanese population. The fighting first on Iwo Jima and then on Okinawa had shown the fanaticism of not merely the Japanese soldiers, which might reasonably be expected, but of the Japanese civilian population, which had proved willing to fight well prepared and armed US troops with nothing more than kitchen implements, retreat into caves and strongpoints with the military forces and from there fight to the death, and to commit mass suicide when capture seemed unavoidable.

Given this, projected casualties for Operation Olympic were on the order of one to four million, and that is on the US side only. Projected Japanese fatalities were hideously worse - 20-25 million, with the vast majority being civilian casualties. This was assuming the two-part plan both worked AND ended the war - and there was some doubt on that last point. Olympic was a two part attack. First, would be the invasion and occupation of the northern island of Hokkaido. Second, using Hokkaido as a staging area, an even larger force would sweep south onto the main island of Honshu, specifically landing on the Kanto Plain, the large, flat sea plain that includes the city and harbour of Tokyo.The Kanto Plain would be occupied, the government of Japan forced to surrender having lost their most strategically valuable and industrially developed heartland.

However, a minority of analysts believed that the Japanese Government would simply withdraw to the southern islands and continue to fight, especially if they could get the Emperor out of Tokyo in time. In this case, casualties could have been as high as four times the original projections.

This is what Truman was faced with when he was given the option of the Atomic Bomb. Did the US-Soviet situation feature in his thinking? Probably. Truman was a man who considered problems carefully, and from many sides, before making a decision, and he did not trust Josef Stalin (for good reason). But the Cold War's beginnings were still three years in the future, with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman, from his writings, did not believe that there was a fundamental antagonism between the two countries.

To say that the nukings of the Japanese was primarily aimed at anything beyond getting the Japanese to capitulate is to show a serious lack of understanding of the era, the peoples involved and the situation at hand. There were other considerations; there always are. But the primary purpose was very clear - to save lives, and end the war.